hleV wrote: » NiKr wrote: » It comes down to risk and reward.BHs have their reward system on top of the red's loot, so their risk is higher. Purples have lowered penalties and the red's loot, but the red is free to kill them, so it balances out. Greens could lose more stuff on death, so the red can be dampened in his stats (as Depraved said - not always). Once again, a risk/reward balance. It's true for the red as well. You kill purples for free, but you're dampened. The loot is also lessened. Your survival is somewhat assured. The risk/reward balance comes from the relative rareness of flagged people within the surroundings of a PKer. BHs can find you (the risk), but you're completely free to fight them and have no stat dampen (easier surviving as the reward). The loot is lessened. Greens are your highest risk, because they give more corruption and you're dampened against them. But any random green can have good loot on them, because they weren't prepared to die at that moment, as a pvper/BHer would be. And they can't flag themselves up, so they'll always give more stuff on death. The system is built to protect the greens' gameplay, so obviously they'll be at the top of the danger scale. Of course PKers will see this as unfair, because they just want to kill everyone and not suffer the consequences. And yes, running away from greens is one of the consequences, that you should be ready for when you decide to PK someone. Okay, let's try again: What did an INNOCENT green PvEer do to deserve not being able to flag purple to halve their death penalty against a red? The risks and rewards of green vs red specifically are plain stupid, in no way improve the corruption system, only overcomplicate and mess it up.
NiKr wrote: » It comes down to risk and reward.BHs have their reward system on top of the red's loot, so their risk is higher. Purples have lowered penalties and the red's loot, but the red is free to kill them, so it balances out. Greens could lose more stuff on death, so the red can be dampened in his stats (as Depraved said - not always). Once again, a risk/reward balance. It's true for the red as well. You kill purples for free, but you're dampened. The loot is also lessened. Your survival is somewhat assured. The risk/reward balance comes from the relative rareness of flagged people within the surroundings of a PKer. BHs can find you (the risk), but you're completely free to fight them and have no stat dampen (easier surviving as the reward). The loot is lessened. Greens are your highest risk, because they give more corruption and you're dampened against them. But any random green can have good loot on them, because they weren't prepared to die at that moment, as a pvper/BHer would be. And they can't flag themselves up, so they'll always give more stuff on death. The system is built to protect the greens' gameplay, so obviously they'll be at the top of the danger scale. Of course PKers will see this as unfair, because they just want to kill everyone and not suffer the consequences. And yes, running away from greens is one of the consequences, that you should be ready for when you decide to PK someone.
Raven016 wrote: » But I am sure the game mechanic as it works was chosen first and later the lore
NiKr wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » But I am sure the game mechanic as it works was chosen first and later the lore Which is exactly why I say that lore can explain the mechanic at any point, if Steven wants it to.
Raven016 wrote: » But if he doesn't then you understand why I said that some things make no sense.
Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Nothing makes sense. It makes perfect sense As AoC game rule to deter griefing yes but as lore no. Try to explain the lore behind how much loot you get depending on player fighting back or not before he dies. Or why the corrupt player cannot store items in his own freehold.
NiKr wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Nothing makes sense. It makes perfect sense
Raven016 wrote: » Nothing makes sense.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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? Where have I ever said that I want to be able to kill a group of 6 players? Is the number "6" which is important? That was just an example. The first sentence of the OP:I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them So how will those non-combatants manage to find you when you are corrupt? The only case I can imagine is that there is a group of greens who mind their business and you go and kill one of them and you become corrupt. And while you attempt to loot, they try to prevent you taking it. You feel entitled to be exempt form getting more corruption because you defeated one of them? The game should not help solo gankers. The number doesn't matter really. In most cases you will likely lose a fight that you're outnumbered in so it's an irrelevant argument. And if you want to have the advantage of tracking corrupt players, become a bounty hunter. I am referring to the green players a corrupt player may happen upon while evading, and if the greens engage them, that corrupt player shouldn't gain more corruption for being engaged by those players. Simple. If you attack someone, you shouldn't give that player corruption. Those players the corrupt one may happen to meet while evading could be looking specifically for him, knowing that is in the area. Makes the game interesting from the perspective of both sides. More risk
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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? Where have I ever said that I want to be able to kill a group of 6 players? Is the number "6" which is important? That was just an example. The first sentence of the OP:I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them So how will those non-combatants manage to find you when you are corrupt? The only case I can imagine is that there is a group of greens who mind their business and you go and kill one of them and you become corrupt. And while you attempt to loot, they try to prevent you taking it. You feel entitled to be exempt form getting more corruption because you defeated one of them? The game should not help solo gankers. The number doesn't matter really. In most cases you will likely lose a fight that you're outnumbered in so it's an irrelevant argument. And if you want to have the advantage of tracking corrupt players, become a bounty hunter. I am referring to the green players a corrupt player may happen upon while evading, and if the greens engage them, that corrupt player shouldn't gain more corruption for being engaged by those players. Simple. If you attack someone, you shouldn't give that player corruption.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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? Where have I ever said that I want to be able to kill a group of 6 players? Is the number "6" which is important? That was just an example. The first sentence of the OP:I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them So how will those non-combatants manage to find you when you are corrupt? The only case I can imagine is that there is a group of greens who mind their business and you go and kill one of them and you become corrupt. And while you attempt to loot, they try to prevent you taking it. You feel entitled to be exempt form getting more corruption because you defeated one of them? The game should not help solo gankers.
Dolyem wrote: » 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? Where have I ever said that I want to be able to kill a group of 6 players?
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.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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? Where have I ever said that I want to be able to kill a group of 6 players? Is the number "6" which is important? That was just an example. The first sentence of the OP:I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them So how will those non-combatants manage to find you when you are corrupt? The only case I can imagine is that there is a group of greens who mind their business and you go and kill one of them and you become corrupt. And while you attempt to loot, they try to prevent you taking it. You feel entitled to be exempt form getting more corruption because you defeated one of them? The game should not help solo gankers. The number doesn't matter really. In most cases you will likely lose a fight that you're outnumbered in so it's an irrelevant argument. And if you want to have the advantage of tracking corrupt players, become a bounty hunter. I am referring to the green players a corrupt player may happen upon while evading, and if the greens engage them, that corrupt player shouldn't gain more corruption for being engaged by those players. Simple. If you attack someone, you shouldn't give that player corruption. Those players the corrupt one may happen to meet while evading could be looking specifically for him, knowing that is in the area. Makes the game interesting from the perspective of both sides. More risk Risk scales with the amount of corruption, so the risk is proportionate to the crime. The risk is there, no need to exponentially multiply for actions that aren't griefing
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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? Where have I ever said that I want to be able to kill a group of 6 players? Is the number "6" which is important? That was just an example. The first sentence of the OP:I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them So how will those non-combatants manage to find you when you are corrupt? The only case I can imagine is that there is a group of greens who mind their business and you go and kill one of them and you become corrupt. And while you attempt to loot, they try to prevent you taking it. You feel entitled to be exempt form getting more corruption because you defeated one of them? The game should not help solo gankers. The number doesn't matter really. In most cases you will likely lose a fight that you're outnumbered in so it's an irrelevant argument. And if you want to have the advantage of tracking corrupt players, become a bounty hunter. I am referring to the green players a corrupt player may happen upon while evading, and if the greens engage them, that corrupt player shouldn't gain more corruption for being engaged by those players. Simple. If you attack someone, you shouldn't give that player corruption. Those players the corrupt one may happen to meet while evading could be looking specifically for him, knowing that is in the area. Makes the game interesting from the perspective of both sides. More risk Risk scales with the amount of corruption, so the risk is proportionate to the crime. The risk is there, no need to exponentially multiply for actions that aren't griefing But the risk is that you see a solo gatherer and you have no idea if he has friends nearby or not. You take the risk and they hunt you down to recover what you stole from one of them. But they are not good enough and you kill a few. Eventually your debuf taken from corruption will make you equal to their level and you die. Seems a fair ending. Can also be that those greens are not the gatherer friends but gankers who gank you. Then they will fight each-other unless they are in a team. There is no way you can say the game is unfair with gankers if Steven wants to have it this way.
Depraved wrote: » well, carebears complain that pvpers force them into a type of gameplay that they dont want, but they are the same people who force other players into a type of gameplay they dont want, and when you call them out they say something like that, like mobs arent owned by you, etc etc. they come to your spot when there are literally 10 other spots available and force you to play in a different way.
Dolyem wrote: » Once they choose to hunt you down, there is no longer a grief factor. So no need for more corruption. Being a better player doesn't call for corruption.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Once they choose to hunt you down, there is no longer a grief factor. So no need for more corruption. Being a better player doesn't call for corruption. Part of the Risk of going Red is being treated like a monster by Greens. If you don't want more Corruption, you can choose not to fight back - just as Greens you killed chose not to fight back because they did not wish to flag Purple.
NiKr wrote: » We should just have mobs that are super powerful and collect player loot when they kill them. But with each kill they become slightly weaker. In other words, the pve side of the corruption mechanic. People will have to sacrifice characters if they want to win
Dolyem wrote: » Monsters are supposed to fight back when attacked. And if you make fighting back a death sentence regardless of how much corruption you have, you make corruption too punishing. Gaining corruption for non-griefing kills isnt what corruption is for.
Dolyem wrote: » Imagine just feeding an enemy nodes raid boss to the point where its invincible and it de-levels their node because it cant be dealt with. Funny, but please no
Dygz wrote: » And to have enough Corrupted players that the Bounty Hunter system is used often enough for his goals.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Monsters are supposed to fight back when attacked. And if you make fighting back a death sentence regardless of how much corruption you have, you make corruption too punishing. Gaining corruption for non-griefing kills isnt what corruption is for. Yep…so…kill some Greens and become more of a monster. The Lineage II players say that Karma was not too punishing. Steven will be tweaking Corruption to find his sweet spot where Corruption does not feel so punishing that Purples rarely fight each other. And to have enough Corrupted players that the Bounty Hunter system is used often enough for his goals.
NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Imagine just feeding an enemy nodes raid boss to the point where its invincible and it de-levels their node because it cant be dealt with. Funny, but please no Nahnahnah, they start at that insanely strong point and you gotta feed them to make them weaker. Just like corruption works for reds against greens. Oh and yeah, you gotta feed them greens, so any pvp around the boss would be detrimental (which could play into enemy node's plans).
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » well, carebears complain that pvpers force them into a type of gameplay that they dont want, but they are the same people who force other players into a type of gameplay they dont want, and when you call them out they say something like that, like mobs arent owned by you, etc etc. they come to your spot when there are literally 10 other spots available and force you to play in a different way. Carebears would prefer to play on a separate PvE-only server, so... I don't see how Carebears are forcing anything on PvPers - especially not for Ashes. "Your spot" is not a concept that is supported by any MMORPG game mecahnic I'm aware of.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. Next level Carebear would be to not farm anything. Carebear Challenge is reaching max level with 0 kills. But... players don't really own farmable areas, so... PvE Corruption would not be a thing. well, carebears complain that pvpers force them into a type of gameplay that they dont want, but they are the same people who force other players into a type of gameplay they dont want .. . That is Steven. He makes the game as it is. PvPers have to PvE to clean corruption, PvEers have to PvP to retain some of their own collected stuff... Nothing makes sense. Without such rules, gankers would take everything and would never PvE unless for materials when the PvEers left the server. You will have to play the game and including some of the parts you don't like. Gamers consent to any game they play from the time they double click the launcher, hit the button that takes you to the character select screen, selecting the character you enter the world with, and selecting play game. Due diligence will allow anyone to research the game before making any purchases; if someone doesn't like the risk of being PvP'd, then they won't like Ashes. If someone doesn't like killing mobs, then they won't like Ashes. Why they would leave the server knowing they're going to lose their shit eventually constitutes failure on their part. Everyone will eventually lose something in Ashes. How about killing pigs? Can we put them to sleep maybe?
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. Next level Carebear would be to not farm anything. Carebear Challenge is reaching max level with 0 kills. But... players don't really own farmable areas, so... PvE Corruption would not be a thing. well, carebears complain that pvpers force them into a type of gameplay that they dont want, but they are the same people who force other players into a type of gameplay they dont want .. . That is Steven. He makes the game as it is. PvPers have to PvE to clean corruption, PvEers have to PvP to retain some of their own collected stuff... Nothing makes sense. Without such rules, gankers would take everything and would never PvE unless for materials when the PvEers left the server. You will have to play the game and including some of the parts you don't like. Gamers consent to any game they play from the time they double click the launcher, hit the button that takes you to the character select screen, selecting the character you enter the world with, and selecting play game. Due diligence will allow anyone to research the game before making any purchases; if someone doesn't like the risk of being PvP'd, then they won't like Ashes. If someone doesn't like killing mobs, then they won't like Ashes. Why they would leave the server knowing they're going to lose their shit eventually constitutes failure on their part. Everyone will eventually lose something in Ashes.
Raven016 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. Next level Carebear would be to not farm anything. Carebear Challenge is reaching max level with 0 kills. But... players don't really own farmable areas, so... PvE Corruption would not be a thing. well, carebears complain that pvpers force them into a type of gameplay that they dont want, but they are the same people who force other players into a type of gameplay they dont want .. . That is Steven. He makes the game as it is. PvPers have to PvE to clean corruption, PvEers have to PvP to retain some of their own collected stuff... Nothing makes sense. Without such rules, gankers would take everything and would never PvE unless for materials when the PvEers left the server.
Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. Next level Carebear would be to not farm anything. Carebear Challenge is reaching max level with 0 kills. But... players don't really own farmable areas, so... PvE Corruption would not be a thing. well, carebears complain that pvpers force them into a type of gameplay that they dont want, but they are the same people who force other players into a type of gameplay they dont want .. .
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. Next level Carebear would be to not farm anything. Carebear Challenge is reaching max level with 0 kills. But... players don't really own farmable areas, so... PvE Corruption would not be a thing.
Depraved wrote: » 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.
