hleV wrote: » Are you agreeing or disagreeing or just posting for the sake of posting? I'm really confused by what point you're trying to make here.
hleV wrote: » You're either failing to see the point or choosing not to see it. The BH advantage you're talking about is irrelevant in the scenario of a green coming across a random red. In this case green has way better advantage than a BH: he gets to jump a stat-dampened red and the red might hesitate to fight back so as not to further increase their corruption. That's why the rules for aggressive green vs red should temporarily work as BH vs red. Otherwise a BH who knows where the reds are can tell their non-BH friend to hunt them, because it's better to go vs red as a green than as a BH.
Dygz wrote: » Better in what ways? Could you list the ways it's "better", please?
hleV wrote: » Already been listed. Anything extra would be a waste of energy, so I'll refrain. I have zero confidence in your ability to grasp PvP topics.
hleV wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Better in what ways? Could you list the ways it's "better", please? Already been listed. Anything extra would be a waste of energy, so I'll refrain. I have zero confidence in your ability to grasp PvP topics.
hleV wrote: » You're only talking about how to work around the issue, not the issue itself. Most of your workarounds are based on assumptions, too (like comparing hiding from others to L2). You don't know how it'll be in AoC. The issue remains. Is it easy to avoid/work around? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't remove the issue itself. AGGRESSIVE greens should not have any advantage over BHs whatsoever when it comes to fighting reds, and if the system is kept as is, greens will. To summarize my point, stat-dampening should work as a means to stop you from going on killing sprees against innocent greens, not screw you in the case that a green decides to attack you (it's a job for BHs after all).
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Gatherers will not typically have enough resources to worth being ganked. But if there are cases where you know that a player has epic resources, he may or may not be alone. The system as it is now help gatherer teams survive when they are afraid they cannot defeat the solo ganker. I see no reason to help a solo ganker to be as efficient as a group of gankers.If the gatherers can team up, gankers should do that too. Typical case for ganking could be on roads between nodes where players transport carefully selected materials, using mules instead of caravans. Gankers will be the force which push players to use caravans when they transport something expensive. While they look for caravans they'll see players with mules and will attack them. If they do not flag as combatants, the attackers might stop, thinking they have nothing of value. Once in a while they might go all the way and kill, to check what the mule really contains. If green players notice that gankers stop ganking, they may think it is safe and start increasing the value of materials they transport outside of the caravan system. When the value gets high enough, gankers will notice and start ganking more often again, pushing them back into the caravan system. The difference between caravans and mules from my understanding is that caravans are set on road systems the player must choose from, which will almost guarantee them being intercepted but also have many more defense options. Mules are less protected but have free range of movement. Not to mention carrying capacity. So if you decide to take a mule cross country, it's up to you to decide how to defend it. If a solo player is capable of taking it down, I don't see an issue there, the mule should have planned more accordingly. Same goes for groups. And part of the gamble of players attacking mules or gatherers is the chance they don't have great loot. Either way, my corruption suggestions still apply to these instances as well. Regarding the last sentence "Either way, my corruption suggestions still apply to these instances as well" Your issue is that you want as a soloer to be able to attack a group of 6 greens and kill them all but not grind the experience for the 6 kills. A group of 6 gankers could share the corruption and grind it together 6 times faster than you can. Why do you want an advantage over the players who team up?
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Gatherers will not typically have enough resources to worth being ganked. But if there are cases where you know that a player has epic resources, he may or may not be alone. The system as it is now help gatherer teams survive when they are afraid they cannot defeat the solo ganker. I see no reason to help a solo ganker to be as efficient as a group of gankers.If the gatherers can team up, gankers should do that too. Typical case for ganking could be on roads between nodes where players transport carefully selected materials, using mules instead of caravans. Gankers will be the force which push players to use caravans when they transport something expensive. While they look for caravans they'll see players with mules and will attack them. If they do not flag as combatants, the attackers might stop, thinking they have nothing of value. Once in a while they might go all the way and kill, to check what the mule really contains. If green players notice that gankers stop ganking, they may think it is safe and start increasing the value of materials they transport outside of the caravan system. When the value gets high enough, gankers will notice and start ganking more often again, pushing them back into the caravan system. The difference between caravans and mules from my understanding is that caravans are set on road systems the player must choose from, which will almost guarantee them being intercepted but also have many more defense options. Mules are less protected but have free range of movement. Not to mention carrying capacity. So if you decide to take a mule cross country, it's up to you to decide how to defend it. If a solo player is capable of taking it down, I don't see an issue there, the mule should have planned more accordingly. Same goes for groups. And part of the gamble of players attacking mules or gatherers is the chance they don't have great loot. Either way, my corruption suggestions still apply to these instances as well.
Raven016 wrote: » Gatherers will not typically have enough resources to worth being ganked. But if there are cases where you know that a player has epic resources, he may or may not be alone. The system as it is now help gatherer teams survive when they are afraid they cannot defeat the solo ganker. I see no reason to help a solo ganker to be as efficient as a group of gankers.If the gatherers can team up, gankers should do that too. Typical case for ganking could be on roads between nodes where players transport carefully selected materials, using mules instead of caravans. Gankers will be the force which push players to use caravans when they transport something expensive. While they look for caravans they'll see players with mules and will attack them. If they do not flag as combatants, the attackers might stop, thinking they have nothing of value. Once in a while they might go all the way and kill, to check what the mule really contains. If green players notice that gankers stop ganking, they may think it is safe and start increasing the value of materials they transport outside of the caravan system. When the value gets high enough, gankers will notice and start ganking more often again, pushing them back into the caravan system.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » hleV wrote: » Depraved wrote: » hleV wrote: » BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment. the difference is regular greens cant see you anywhere on the map, bh can They don't need to see you on the map, because you're on their screen. They don't serve as general dedicated BHs, they temporarily do a BH's job of trying to dispose of a corrupted player, so the combat rules and penalties should be identical. Depraved wrote: » I like the stat dampening tbh. it prevents lots of ways to abuse the system, like making an alt just to pk and be perma red without getting your main character's hands dirty. Have you perhaps missed the part where my whole post was specifically about AGGRESSIVE greens being... AGGRESSIVE? Greens don't need extra advantages (such as initiating a fight against a red and easily killing them because they have dampened stats), otherwise it won't make sense to be a dedicated BH when fighting a red as a green is so much better. Yes I saw the aggressor part. My whole argument has been to not punish with MORE corruption when defending oneself. I still believe corruption should have weight to its punishment. I've also said that the first few PKs should be more lenient. So someone not necessarily griefing can still fight back, while someone who passes the griefing threshold gets significantly more worse debuffs. Deterring griefing You do not defend yourself. You still fight for the loot of the first green you killed and maybe you had no time to loot it yet because the tetris like inventory system. Even if you had time to loot it, you cannot claim at that very moment that is yours and not theirs.
Dolyem wrote: » hleV wrote: » Depraved wrote: » hleV wrote: » BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment. the difference is regular greens cant see you anywhere on the map, bh can They don't need to see you on the map, because you're on their screen. They don't serve as general dedicated BHs, they temporarily do a BH's job of trying to dispose of a corrupted player, so the combat rules and penalties should be identical. Depraved wrote: » I like the stat dampening tbh. it prevents lots of ways to abuse the system, like making an alt just to pk and be perma red without getting your main character's hands dirty. Have you perhaps missed the part where my whole post was specifically about AGGRESSIVE greens being... AGGRESSIVE? Greens don't need extra advantages (such as initiating a fight against a red and easily killing them because they have dampened stats), otherwise it won't make sense to be a dedicated BH when fighting a red as a green is so much better. Yes I saw the aggressor part. My whole argument has been to not punish with MORE corruption when defending oneself. I still believe corruption should have weight to its punishment. I've also said that the first few PKs should be more lenient. So someone not necessarily griefing can still fight back, while someone who passes the griefing threshold gets significantly more worse debuffs. Deterring griefing
hleV wrote: » Depraved wrote: » hleV wrote: » BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment. the difference is regular greens cant see you anywhere on the map, bh can They don't need to see you on the map, because you're on their screen. They don't serve as general dedicated BHs, they temporarily do a BH's job of trying to dispose of a corrupted player, so the combat rules and penalties should be identical. Depraved wrote: » I like the stat dampening tbh. it prevents lots of ways to abuse the system, like making an alt just to pk and be perma red without getting your main character's hands dirty. Have you perhaps missed the part where my whole post was specifically about AGGRESSIVE greens being... AGGRESSIVE? Greens don't need extra advantages (such as initiating a fight against a red and easily killing them because they have dampened stats), otherwise it won't make sense to be a dedicated BH when fighting a red as a green is so much better.
Depraved wrote: » hleV wrote: » BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment. the difference is regular greens cant see you anywhere on the map, bh can
hleV wrote: » BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment.
Depraved wrote: » I like the stat dampening tbh. it prevents lots of ways to abuse the system, like making an alt just to pk and be perma red without getting your main character's hands dirty.
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context). Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive. i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person... probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking. I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences. what if a completely different person that has nothing to do with you kills that player because that player was pve griefing him? now that other dude is gonna get a lot of corruption on his first kill xD poor guy hahaha
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context). Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive. i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person... probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking. I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences.
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context). Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive. i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person... probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking.
Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context). Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive.
NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context).
Dolyem wrote: » Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you
hleV wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Yes I saw the aggressor part. My whole argument has been to not punish with MORE corruption when defending oneself. I still believe corruption should have weight to its punishment. I've also said that the first few PKs should be more lenient. So someone not necessarily griefing can still fight back, while someone who passes the griefing threshold gets significantly more worse debuffs. Deterring griefing Are you Depraved? It's him I was replying to.
Dolyem wrote: » Yes I saw the aggressor part. My whole argument has been to not punish with MORE corruption when defending oneself. I still believe corruption should have weight to its punishment. I've also said that the first few PKs should be more lenient. So someone not necessarily griefing can still fight back, while someone who passes the griefing threshold gets significantly more worse debuffs. Deterring griefing
Dygz wrote: » hleV wrote: » Already been listed. Anything extra would be a waste of energy, so I'll refrain. I have zero confidence in your ability to grasp PvP topics. Then it should be easy for you to re-post the list. That don't take a lot of "energy". Also, I don't need to understand PvP topics - I just need to understand the Ashes flagging system.
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context). Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive. i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person... probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking. I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences. what if a completely different person that has nothing to do with you kills that player because that player was pve griefing him? now that other dude is gonna get a lot of corruption on his first kill xD poor guy hahaha I didn't say it was a perfect suggestion haha. Just offering middle ground. But you're right as far as if they are PvE griefing. I feel like there should be a supplemental corruption system for PvE griefing as well.
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context). Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive. i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person... probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking. I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences. what if a completely different person that has nothing to do with you kills that player because that player was pve griefing him? now that other dude is gonna get a lot of corruption on his first kill xD poor guy hahaha I didn't say it was a perfect suggestion haha. Just offering middle ground. But you're right as far as if they are PvE griefing. I feel like there should be a supplemental corruption system for PvE griefing as well. I wish we had pve corruption. here is a crazy idea, if you are farming in an area, and another person starts attacking the mobs near you, they should get corruption I want to farm without anyone bothering me, you know. I want to be able to farm without those annoying pvers forcing me to kill mobs faster or forcing me to go to another area. I wanna be next level carebear.
Dolyem wrote: » I'd argue that you need a proper understanding of PvP to giving proper feedback on a system that mainly has to do with OWPvP
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I'd argue that you need a proper understanding of PvP to giving proper feedback on a system that mainly has to do with OWPvP You can argue anything - doesn't mean it's a valid argument.
