Solvryn wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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?
Solvryn wrote: » And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Dygz wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Dygz wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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?
Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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?
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » unknownsystemerror wrote: » NiKr wrote: » 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.
Dolyem wrote: » unknownsystemerror wrote: » NiKr wrote: » 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.
unknownsystemerror wrote: » NiKr wrote: » 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."
NiKr wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » 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.
NiKr wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Then, as the player becomes corrupt, should get less agro from corrupt NPCs. And I'd love that. The ultimate risk/reward move. Become corrupt and farm mobs, but risk it all by attracting attacks from players. And I've already suggested mobs becoming "green" in the past. I'd love to see npc factions fighting each other and if players help one side - some of their mobs become full-fledged npcs who have left their corrupt ways. PvX as fuck, and I'd imagine Dygz would see that as rpg as fuck as well.
Raven016 wrote: » Then, as the player becomes corrupt, should get less agro from corrupt NPCs.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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...
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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. Even @Dygz has given examples of how to grief with PvE, trailing a group of mobs onto another player so they die to NPCs.
Ravicus wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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. Even @Dygz has given examples of how to grief with PvE, trailing a group of mobs onto another player so they die to NPCs. If that is griefing then people get upset too easily.
Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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.
