Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations.
Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up.
Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed.
So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine.
Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response.
Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers?
The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended.
I think players are more flexible to adapt to a corruption system than the system to be adjusted for specific cases.
One can grief by playing music in voice chat or causing some game sounds repeatedly or using rp emotes.
Players can move away.
What other kind of griefing you can see where they are green? Harvesting resources in places you do not want them to harvest? I think that is intended by Steven. Therefore he doesn't offer the tools to stop them unless you start a war.
Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations.
Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up.
Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed.
So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine.
Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response.
Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers?
The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended.
I think players are more flexible to adapt to a corruption system than the system to be adjusted for specific cases.
One can grief by playing music in voice chat or causing some game sounds repeatedly or using rp emotes.
Players can move away.
What other kind of griefing you can see where they are green? Harvesting resources in places you do not want them to harvest? I think that is intended by Steven. Therefore he doesn't offer the tools to stop them unless you start a war.
People trying to destroy others guilds, sabotaging, being a political candyass and being underhanded.
There’s a litany of ways to grief someone.
Should we punish an entire guild for the whims of a single player?
I don’t think so.
I have chronic tinnitus if someone does annoying shit like blast music over in game comms you’re damn right Im going to kill them.
The system needs to deter higher levels from bullying lower levels only. If a player chooses to die when they’re perfectly capable of defending themselves that’s they’re own damn fault.
How can a high level bully a low level?
Killing the mobs he kills?
I think negative behavior happens more often when a game is very popular and a huge number of players join. Most likely in free to play games.
Where players have to pay monthly subscription the community will be smaller.
And there will be GMs you can contact for specific cases.
Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations.
Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up.
Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed.
So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine.
Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response.
Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers?
The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended.
I think players are more flexible to adapt to a corruption system than the system to be adjusted for specific cases.
One can grief by playing music in voice chat or causing some game sounds repeatedly or using rp emotes.
Players can move away.
What other kind of griefing you can see where they are green? Harvesting resources in places you do not want them to harvest? I think that is intended by Steven. Therefore he doesn't offer the tools to stop them unless you start a war.
People trying to destroy others guilds, sabotaging, being a political candyass and being underhanded.
There’s a litany of ways to grief someone.
Should we punish an entire guild for the whims of a single player?
I don’t think so.
I have chronic tinnitus if someone does annoying shit like blast music over in game comms you’re damn right Im going to kill them.
I remember sending a PM to the the guild leader of a player who did something I didn't liked.
He apologized and said he will look into it.
Reputation of a guild can be important when you try to recruit new members or even retain the existing ones.
The system needs to deter higher levels from bullying lower levels only. If a player chooses to die when they’re perfectly capable of defending themselves that’s they’re own damn fault.
How can a high level bully a low level?
Killing the mobs he kills?
I think negative behavior happens more often when a game is very popular and a huge number of players join. Most likely in free to play games.
Where players have to pay monthly subscription the community will be smaller.
And there will be GMs you can contact for specific cases.
By killing them very systematically?
Hence where the system makes sense.
That didn’t stop anyone in WoW from killing lowbies, just part of PvP.
Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations.
Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up.
Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed.
So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine.
Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response.
Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers?
The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended.
I think players are more flexible to adapt to a corruption system than the system to be adjusted for specific cases.
One can grief by playing music in voice chat or causing some game sounds repeatedly or using rp emotes.
Players can move away.
What other kind of griefing you can see where they are green? Harvesting resources in places you do not want them to harvest? I think that is intended by Steven. Therefore he doesn't offer the tools to stop them unless you start a war.
People trying to destroy others guilds, sabotaging, being a political candyass and being underhanded.
There’s a litany of ways to grief someone.
Should we punish an entire guild for the whims of a single player?
I don’t think so.
I have chronic tinnitus if someone does annoying shit like blast music over in game comms you’re damn right Im going to kill them.
I remember sending a PM to the the guild leader of a player who did something I didn't liked.
He apologized and said he will look into it.
Reputation of a guild can be important when you try to recruit new members or even retain the existing ones.
I told a guild leader to handle his dude or Id war dec. That’s *after* I handed dude his head.
So you don’t know what an honor PK is? I guess it makes sense since the newer games are relatively tame.
Someone can have a PK count of 1000. If he killed the shitbags and all varieties of griefers, then yeah his honor is still intact.
No reason to punish him for doing the server a favor.
The system needs to deter higher levels from bullying lower levels only. If a player chooses to die when they’re perfectly capable of defending themselves that’s they’re own damn fault.
I mean, if you're a well-known honor killer people just won't kill you when you're red. But with honor kill come enemies, so you'll be dying either way.
There's already ways of punishing shitbags and griefers. There's node wars, guild wars, enemy of the state mechanic, general annoyance and intrusion in their gameplay. None of those include PKing.
I get that you're oldschool and want to just kill people w/o any punishment for doing so, but this is not that kind of game.
The system needs to deter higher levels from bullying lower levels only. If a player chooses to die when they’re perfectly capable of defending themselves that’s they’re own damn fault.
How can a high level bully a low level?
Killing the mobs he kills?
I think negative behavior happens more often when a game is very popular and a huge number of players join. Most likely in free to play games.
Where players have to pay monthly subscription the community will be smaller.
And there will be GMs you can contact for specific cases.
By killing them very systematically?
Hence where the system makes sense.
That didn’t stop anyone in WoW from killing lowbies, just part of PvP.
Actually I have no idea how leveling will happen in AoC
If there will be some adjustments to the corruption system, I doubt that those will be made in a way to allow players to kill other players to punish them because a low level was not protected by the corruption itself.
Possibly they will go through some story quests to level up which might confer them some protection too.
Anyway, there will be players who need protection also at max level. Especially if they go into the deep sea.
Why not build a honor of being a trustworthy companion in such areas?
So you don’t know what an honor PK is? I guess it makes sense since the newer games are relatively tame.
Someone can have a PK count of 1000. If he killed the shitbags and all varieties of griefers, then yeah his honor is still intact.
No reason to punish him for doing the server a favor.
The system needs to deter higher levels from bullying lower levels only. If a player chooses to die when they’re perfectly capable of defending themselves that’s they’re own damn fault.
I mean, if you're a well-known honor killer people just won't kill you when you're red. But with honor kill come enemies, so you'll be dying either way.
There's already ways of punishing shitbags and griefers. There's node wars, guild wars, enemy of the state mechanic, general annoyance and intrusion in their gameplay. None of those include PKing.
I get that you're oldschool and want to just kill people w/o any punishment for doing so, but this is not that kind of game.
No, I’m going to kill shitbags and griefers regardless.
And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Let's say the game can detect that a high level is killing low level mobs while there are other low level players nearby.
Those low level players could tag the NPC and do a little bit of damage and each time this high level kills them, he could get a bar filled which could eventually make him corrupt.
Would this be ok?
And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Let's say the game can detect that a high level is killing low level mobs while there are other low level players nearby.
Those low level players could tag the NPC and do a little bit of damage and each time this high level kills them, he could get a bar filled which could eventually make him corrupt.
Would this be ok?
By all means, let the higher level suffer the proposed penalties.
It’s when someone kills someone their own level or near it is when I don’t really see it as griefing.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Meaningful conflict for me entails much more than "sieges" and "caravans". Every individual is going to decide what they find meaningful.
That goes without saying... for pretty much everything.
MMORPGs attract a wide variety of playstyles.
But... the Kickstarter defines what Meaningful Conflict means for Ashes.
Just as the term Class has a specific definition for Ashes.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
MMO History Lesson: Also PKing is PvPing, back in the old days it was everyone was red, everyone could get looted. We called it PKing, had nothing to do with some pseudo-moralistic stance people have today, they changed the loot rules so the carebears could partake in PvPing without any real consequence to their actions. So they had their fun at the expense of someone elses, which is ironic because that was their argument.
Language drift over time, but... it wasn't Carebears and loot rules that changed the term.
Rather it was "honor PKers" who want to mark a difference between "legit" PvP among equals and Gankers who prey on the weak.
PKing became synonymous with Ganking. I think especially with international gamers.
Japanese has adopted the term PK as a loan word for Ganker.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Which is why Ashes has many paths for Corruption-free PvP - including The Open Seas.
If you wish to be an honor PKer who kills griefers without gaining Corruption become a Bounty Hunter.
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 due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power
Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations.
Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up.
Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed.
So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine.
Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response.
Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers?
The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended.
well, how can you identify what are the good reasons to kill another player? to me, a good reason is im farming and they are too close to me. if we dont get penalties by pking for good reasons, people will abuse that.
And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Let's say the game can detect that a high level is killing low level mobs while there are other low level players nearby.
Those low level players could tag the NPC and do a little bit of damage and each time this high level kills them, he could get a bar filled which could eventually make him corrupt.
Would this be ok?
no. low levels need to go somewhere else and level up then.
And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Let's say the game can detect that a high level is killing low level mobs while there are other low level players nearby.
Those low level players could tag the NPC and do a little bit of damage and each time this high level kills them, he could get a bar filled which could eventually make him corrupt.
Would this be ok?
By all means, let the higher level suffer the proposed penalties.
It’s when someone kills someone their own level or near it is when I don’t really see it as griefing.
what if a low level kills a high level? should the low level get a penalty then?
MMO History Lesson: Also PKing is PvPing, back in the old days it was everyone was red, everyone could get looted. We called it PKing, had nothing to do with some pseudo-moralistic stance people have today, they changed the loot rules so the carebears could partake in PvPing without any real consequence to their actions. So they had their fun at the expense of someone elses, which is ironic because that was their argument.
Language drift over time, but... it wasn't Carebears and loot rules that changed the term.
Rather it was "honor PKers" who want to mark a difference between "legit" PvP among equals and Gankers who prey on the weak.
PKing became synonymous with Ganking. I think especially with international gamers.
Japanese has adopted the term PK as a loan word for Ganker.
Language does change over time, there's no doubt about that. It's interesting to see how carebear went from anything non full loot to, people who dislike PvP.
It's also interesting to see the international perception, again PKing just meant the oldstyle "you're red, you're dead" attitude and full loot. It's definitely interesting to see Eastern Games define a PKer as someone who griefs or ganks.
Ganking has always been killing someone out of stealth with zero time to react or retaliate where as, griefing always meant a dickhead out to ruin peoples enjoyment of a game. So it makes a bit more sense as a lot of people who play eastern games vs western games and how they use the terminology. I suppose it changes with oldschool and new school too.
You read these forums and everyone says a "Pker" is a bad person, where as the distinction for me is no, a griefer is a griefer and it doesn't matter if they PvP or not, they're still gonna catch hell.
Honor PKers are going to be Honor PKers or I guess in this day and age an "Honor PvPer" regardless of the loot rules. I suppose Ashes of creation it's back to PKing because of the soft loot rules.
Still don't think an honor PvPer should be heavily penalized for taking out the trash, the system still lacks context.
And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Which is why Ashes has many paths for Corruption-free PvP - including The Open Seas.
If you wish to be an honor PKer who kills griefers without gaining Corruption become a Bounty Hunter.
The bounty system will not have bounties on all types of griefing and because the system is contextless, just because someone is corrupted doesn't mean they did it to grief. They may have PK'd the guys who like to kill the level 1 who wants to roam around minding his business staring at the butterflies and exploring things.
And that may not be just you, I imagine there will be many people who are just minding their own business getting shit on for no reason. Those people will eventually go green.
I'm still going to kill them if I know they're a griefer. If someone is a scam artist and griefs some new player out of their loot, I'm still going to kill that scammer.
I'm still going to kill the asshole who jumps people at 20% health and doesn't give them a fair shake at a fight.
And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Let's say the game can detect that a high level is killing low level mobs while there are other low level players nearby.
Those low level players could tag the NPC and do a little bit of damage and each time this high level kills them, he could get a bar filled which could eventually make him corrupt.
Would this be ok?
By all means, let the higher level suffer the proposed penalties.
It’s when someone kills someone their own level or near it is when I don’t really see it as griefing.
what if a low level kills a high level? should the low level get a penalty then?
When is a low level ever going to have an opportunity to kill a high level? In a high level zone? The mobs will kill them.
In a town? The guards will kill them.
Hows a low level going to kill a high level with 40%-50% of gear being player power?
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Wow the whole corruption idea is getting pretty out there. In my opinion it is so complex that maybe they should just go for the default flag/unflag system. All this banter back and forth on who gets corruption, who gets suckered into corruption, the various penalties for corruption. Seems to me it would be just cleaner and easier to flag/unflag.
Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations.
Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up.
Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed.
So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine.
Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response.
Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers?
The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended.
well, how can you identify what are the good reasons to kill another player? to me, a good reason is im farming and they are too close to me. if we dont get penalties by pking for good reasons, people will abuse that.
If you're farming and someone is next to you and you attack them, there's a high chance they're going to fight back - especially if you're at the same level.
Good reasons? Killing a griefer is a great reason for - camping lowbies, scamming people out of their loot, causing unneeded tension in a guild, trying to cuck another player (yes this has happened in some of the games I've played), killing the guy who always attacks people at 20% of their health while they're buried in mobs, killing the politiprick who always politics and schemes their way in a dishonorable fashion.
There's more than one way to prey on others and the answer is to always bury them no matter where they are.
I'm not saying git rid of the core idea of the system, I'm saying it needs to be greatly expanded upon beyond, because its contextless.
And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Let's say the game can detect that a high level is killing low level mobs while there are other low level players nearby.
Those low level players could tag the NPC and do a little bit of damage and each time this high level kills them, he could get a bar filled which could eventually make him corrupt.
Would this be ok?
By all means, let the higher level suffer the proposed penalties.
It’s when someone kills someone their own level or near it is when I don’t really see it as griefing.
what if a low level kills a high level? should the low level get a penalty then?
When is a low level ever going to have an opportunity to kill a high level? In a high level zone? The mobs will kill them.
In a town? The guards will kill them.
Hows a low level going to kill a high level with 40%-50% of gear being player power?
and the fish takes the bait ;3
according to you, in the ideal system:
the player doing an honor kill shouldn't be penalized.
the player griefing or being evil should be penalized.
the higher level player will be penalized for killing lowbies.
scenario 1:
me and my 2-3 other buddies want to kill you, no reason, just for fun. or maybe we want the farming spot, but we dont want to go red or be penalized. maybe we just want to grief you a bit.
we bring a low level alt, not super low, but definitely lower than you and attack you with it. you cant attack it or you will turn purple then we will kill you. the lower level character can kill you without any consequence now, since there wont be any penalty.
you could make it so that the lower levels do 0 damage to higher levels with better gear, but now people who are 1 or 2 tier of gears below wont have a chance at pvp and the game will become gear based, not skill based.
i think i saw you talking about that in another thread and complaining it shouldnt be gear based.
so what do we do now? the meta will be having low level alts to grief people, unless they would get corruption for killing greens hmm...
scenario 2:
my friend joined the game, or he is leveling an alt. people his own level start griefing him because they are assholes. he cant win 3 vs 1 and asks me to help since im high level. should i get penalized for chasing away lower levels or killing them? we have a contradiction here. they are evil and im not, so i shouldnt be penalized, however, they are lower levels and i should be penalized. what do we do? someone even suggested i should get corruption if i kill the mobs near them lmao...
any system that allows you to kill someone without corruption will be abused. corruption isnt a desirable state, but you can still go for it if there arent people nearby who will kill you before you drop karma, and people are incentivized to fight back anyways, since they will lose less if they die.
In other words, Steven wants even fewer PKers than L2 had, which is why the system "works as intended" in this regard. You just disagree with his decision.
Which he also put out in this post to a video where the guy had "bad takes."
Not once did he say he wants less PKs, not all PKing is griefing. The last bit is all you need. "As a system it is core to introducing risk vs reward in Ashes, while disincentivizing griefing"
My point, defending yourself isn't griefing, therefore shouldn't cause more corruption following this core design philosophy.
10 Gatherers usecase
Let's say a spot with resources just spawns near your node and you find it at the same time with 1 other player. That player send a message and 9 more come and start harvesting, like bots, helping one of them to load a mule.
You are very good at PvP with epic gear and you could kill all of them.
But none want to fight you. They just harvest. You harvest too pretending to be peaceful.
When their mule is loaded or resources depleted, you kill the one with the mule and you become corrupt.
Most likely you cannot take all from the mule unless you have a mule too.
They see you trying to transfer the loot (slowed down by the tetris style) and they start attacking you.
You want now the game to let you kill them because they interfered in the fight you had with one of them?
Your assumption is that after killing a green you should have the right to hold your ground and to defend yourself against the other 10 gatherers and defeat bounty hunters too because you are good and clean the corruption with nearby NPCs which might guard the resources.
Steven wants you to run away and find a safe spot to clean your corruption, if you got valuable loot after kill.
Or you can just let yourself be killed.
Explorer gatherer usecase
Valuable loot you would get only if we talk about resources hard to find which do not fill a player's inventory.
Then you have a reason to kill and hide. Makes no sense to defend a spot against greens.
Transporting goods usecase
Can also happen that 10 players avoid the caravan system to save costs and they carry something valuable using a mule. Or maybe they just transport things to / from caravanserai.
You have a mule too, you could kill all of them but you have to play Tetris while transferring resources from their mule to yours.
They attack your mule after you killed theirs.
You end up killing all of them and now you are very corrupt with a mule and less experience.
They come back with a bounty hunter but they attack you first with the green alts.
Eventually you have to let yourself killed, else you lose a lot of experience.
Conclusion:
- 1 corrupt vs many green is not viable
- 1 vs 1 probably can be in some areas where you can avoid players and kill NPCs while they hunt you with bounty hunters.
- many corrupt vs many green can be like 1 vs 1, if you distribute the corruption. But many greens must let themselves killed. Those could be bots harvesting low tier resources. I don't see high level players defending low level gathering areas.
If you can kill 10 equal level players by yourself, that's a game design problem. In a much more realistic view of that situation, 10 players grouped together would curb stomp a single player attacking them, giving them plenty of safety to flag as combatants. If it's 10 low levels, the initial corruption that player would get would be exponentially higher from what we know, and that's not even taking into account for potentually gaining even more corruption for killing a green players mule. Either way, that player is significantly weakened, and can theoretically now be engaged by the others.
In a more realistic encounter you'd have 2 equal level players, 1 kills the other and becomes corrupt and dips out. Along his way to reduce his corruption another random player attacks him, he defends himself and now his corruption is doubled. This also increases the time, therefore the chance of it happening again, so this continues. 1 gank turns into 10 separate unrelated corruption kills. That's not a good design.
Comments
I think players are more flexible to adapt to a corruption system than the system to be adjusted for specific cases.
One can grief by playing music in voice chat or causing some game sounds repeatedly or using rp emotes.
Players can move away.
What other kind of griefing you can see where they are green? Harvesting resources in places you do not want them to harvest? I think that is intended by Steven. Therefore he doesn't offer the tools to stop them unless you start a war.
People trying to destroy others guilds, sabotaging, being a political candyass and being underhanded.
There’s a litany of ways to grief someone.
Should we punish an entire guild for the whims of a single player?
I don’t think so.
I have chronic tinnitus if someone does annoying shit like blast music over in game comms you’re damn right Im going to kill them.
Killing the mobs he kills?
I think negative behavior happens more often when a game is very popular and a huge number of players join. Most likely in free to play games.
Where players have to pay monthly subscription the community will be smaller.
And there will be GMs you can contact for specific cases.
I remember sending a PM to the the guild leader of a player who did something I didn't liked.
He apologized and said he will look into it.
Reputation of a guild can be important when you try to recruit new members or even retain the existing ones.
By killing them very systematically?
Hence where the system makes sense.
That didn’t stop anyone in WoW from killing lowbies, just part of PvP.
I told a guild leader to handle his dude or Id war dec. That’s *after* I handed dude his head.
There's already ways of punishing shitbags and griefers. There's node wars, guild wars, enemy of the state mechanic, general annoyance and intrusion in their gameplay. None of those include PKing.
I get that you're oldschool and want to just kill people w/o any punishment for doing so, but this is not that kind of game.
Actually I have no idea how leveling will happen in AoC
If there will be some adjustments to the corruption system, I doubt that those will be made in a way to allow players to kill other players to punish them because a low level was not protected by the corruption itself.
Possibly they will go through some story quests to level up which might confer them some protection too.
Anyway, there will be players who need protection also at max level. Especially if they go into the deep sea.
Why not build a honor of being a trustworthy companion in such areas?
No, I’m going to kill shitbags and griefers regardless.
And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Those low level players could tag the NPC and do a little bit of damage and each time this high level kills them, he could get a bar filled which could eventually make him corrupt.
Would this be ok?
By all means, let the higher level suffer the proposed penalties.
It’s when someone kills someone their own level or near it is when I don’t really see it as griefing.
Nothing passive aggressive.
Sometimes you just gotta go with the joke.
MMORPGs attract a wide variety of playstyles.
But... the Kickstarter defines what Meaningful Conflict means for Ashes.
Just as the term Class has a specific definition for Ashes.
Rather it was "honor PKers" who want to mark a difference between "legit" PvP among equals and Gankers who prey on the weak.
PKing became synonymous with Ganking. I think especially with international gamers.
Japanese has adopted the term PK as a loan word for Ganker.
"Mac is the best. Windows sucks."
"WIndows is the best. Mac sucks."
I once worked for an IT person who was an OS2 user.
"OS2 is the best! Windows and Mac sucks"
Same for Linux.
"Linux is the best. WIndows and Mac suck."
If you wish to be an honor PKer who kills griefers without gaining Corruption become a Bounty Hunter.
Non-Combatant attacking Corrupted
well, how can you identify what are the good reasons to kill another player? to me, a good reason is im farming and they are too close to me. if we dont get penalties by pking for good reasons, people will abuse that.
no. low levels need to go somewhere else and level up then.
what if a low level kills a high level? should the low level get a penalty then?
Language does change over time, there's no doubt about that. It's interesting to see how carebear went from anything non full loot to, people who dislike PvP.
It's also interesting to see the international perception, again PKing just meant the oldstyle "you're red, you're dead" attitude and full loot. It's definitely interesting to see Eastern Games define a PKer as someone who griefs or ganks.
Ganking has always been killing someone out of stealth with zero time to react or retaliate where as, griefing always meant a dickhead out to ruin peoples enjoyment of a game. So it makes a bit more sense as a lot of people who play eastern games vs western games and how they use the terminology. I suppose it changes with oldschool and new school too.
You read these forums and everyone says a "Pker" is a bad person, where as the distinction for me is no, a griefer is a griefer and it doesn't matter if they PvP or not, they're still gonna catch hell.
Honor PKers are going to be Honor PKers or I guess in this day and age an "Honor PvPer" regardless of the loot rules. I suppose Ashes of creation it's back to PKing because of the soft loot rules.
Still don't think an honor PvPer should be heavily penalized for taking out the trash, the system still lacks context.
The bounty system will not have bounties on all types of griefing and because the system is contextless, just because someone is corrupted doesn't mean they did it to grief. They may have PK'd the guys who like to kill the level 1 who wants to roam around minding his business staring at the butterflies and exploring things.
And that may not be just you, I imagine there will be many people who are just minding their own business getting shit on for no reason. Those people will eventually go green.
I'm still going to kill them if I know they're a griefer. If someone is a scam artist and griefs some new player out of their loot, I'm still going to kill that scammer.
I'm still going to kill the asshole who jumps people at 20% health and doesn't give them a fair shake at a fight.
I'm not going to wait for open waters to do so.
When is a low level ever going to have an opportunity to kill a high level? In a high level zone? The mobs will kill them.
In a town? The guards will kill them.
Hows a low level going to kill a high level with 40%-50% of gear being player power?
If you're farming and someone is next to you and you attack them, there's a high chance they're going to fight back - especially if you're at the same level.
Good reasons? Killing a griefer is a great reason for - camping lowbies, scamming people out of their loot, causing unneeded tension in a guild, trying to cuck another player (yes this has happened in some of the games I've played), killing the guy who always attacks people at 20% of their health while they're buried in mobs, killing the politiprick who always politics and schemes their way in a dishonorable fashion.
There's more than one way to prey on others and the answer is to always bury them no matter where they are.
I'm not saying git rid of the core idea of the system, I'm saying it needs to be greatly expanded upon beyond, because its contextless.
and the fish takes the bait ;3
according to you, in the ideal system:
scenario 1:
me and my 2-3 other buddies want to kill you, no reason, just for fun. or maybe we want the farming spot, but we dont want to go red or be penalized. maybe we just want to grief you a bit.
we bring a low level alt, not super low, but definitely lower than you and attack you with it. you cant attack it or you will turn purple then we will kill you. the lower level character can kill you without any consequence now, since there wont be any penalty.
you could make it so that the lower levels do 0 damage to higher levels with better gear, but now people who are 1 or 2 tier of gears below wont have a chance at pvp and the game will become gear based, not skill based.
i think i saw you talking about that in another thread and complaining it shouldnt be gear based.
so what do we do now? the meta will be having low level alts to grief people, unless they would get corruption for killing greens hmm...
scenario 2:
my friend joined the game, or he is leveling an alt. people his own level start griefing him because they are assholes. he cant win 3 vs 1 and asks me to help since im high level. should i get penalized for chasing away lower levels or killing them? we have a contradiction here. they are evil and im not, so i shouldnt be penalized, however, they are lower levels and i should be penalized. what do we do? someone even suggested i should get corruption if i kill the mobs near them lmao...
any system that allows you to kill someone without corruption will be abused. corruption isnt a desirable state, but you can still go for it if there arent people nearby who will kill you before you drop karma, and people are incentivized to fight back anyways, since they will lose less if they die.
If you can kill 10 equal level players by yourself, that's a game design problem. In a much more realistic view of that situation, 10 players grouped together would curb stomp a single player attacking them, giving them plenty of safety to flag as combatants. If it's 10 low levels, the initial corruption that player would get would be exponentially higher from what we know, and that's not even taking into account for potentually gaining even more corruption for killing a green players mule. Either way, that player is significantly weakened, and can theoretically now be engaged by the others.
In a more realistic encounter you'd have 2 equal level players, 1 kills the other and becomes corrupt and dips out. Along his way to reduce his corruption another random player attacks him, he defends himself and now his corruption is doubled. This also increases the time, therefore the chance of it happening again, so this continues. 1 gank turns into 10 separate unrelated corruption kills. That's not a good design.