@Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends?
- if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green
- if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green
The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them.
I have no problem accepting Steven's definition of griefing.
You said
"Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. "
What changes to the corruption you want which help defending against green griefers?
The one in the OP does not seem a good idea because it would allow a player who want to attack a group of greens to get the corruption of only one green if they chose to fight back after one of them was killed.
And that group of players can be a group of gatherers or a group of travelers with a mule, transporting goods from freehold to caravanserai.
I've listed many, but generally what I've stated is to make it so early corruption is not detrimental, to accomodate for non griefing kills, and to not rapidly increase that corruption when you defend yourself. This allows players to take initial shots at non combatant griefers, and spend time working off their corruption, which spaces out their engagements so it isn't considered camping.
And if there is a group vs 1, especially 1 who is debuffed by corruption already, that will be an easy kill for that group. If they are low level, they'll grant even more corruption initially, providing a much bigger debuff.
I fully support punishing actual griefing, but not at the expense of legitimate PvP.
@Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends?
- if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green
- if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green
The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them.
I don't see what this would really accomplish? It goes back to the opt-in result where everyone will flag as what benefits them more. Everyone would just choose light green for more protection.
@Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends?
- if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green
- if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green
The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them.
I don't see what this would really accomplish? It goes back to the opt-in result where everyone will flag as what benefits them more. Everyone would just choose light green for more protection.
No, the light green would not protect. By choosing light as a defender you would not put more corruption onto the attacker.
The dark green would protect the attacker against accumulated corruption.
The problem I see in the OP is that somebody attacks and kills a green.
The other green nearby may run or stay but would decide to fight back only after the first green was killed, an action the attacker cannot predict.
The group of greens don't know either if the attacker will kill or stop, being afraid to become corrupt.
By setting the dark green color, both sides get some something useful, before the fight: the defending side gets only an information and a hint that they better run. The attacker side gets the benefit of not getting the corruption if the defenders didn't run but chose to attack instead.
When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif
Yep, griefing takes place everywhere.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Oh god, where did you find that? Thats a permanent increase to corruption gain for every kill you get. This alone will completely remove OW PvP within a month if you can't get rid of those.
Ashes has many paths to OW PVP that do not include the risk of Corruption.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Bounty Hunters are associated with Military Nodes, IIRC???
They do indeed, though I think they are on the fence about only having bounty hunters at military nodes
I'm not aware having of Bounty Hunters only at Military Nodes. But, the quest to activate the BH status is at Military Nodes. I'm not aware of any hints that Steven plans to change that.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2023
If you become Corrupted, you consent to being treated like a monster until the Corruption is worked off.
Doesn't really matter if you think you were just doing some "honor PK".
Only way to grief me is non-consensual PvP.
But... I'm aware there are gamers who have the view they can be griefed via PvE.
@Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends?
- if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green
- if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green
The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them.
I don't see what this would really accomplish? It goes back to the opt-in result where everyone will flag as what benefits them more. Everyone would just choose light green for more protection.
No, the light green would not protect. By choosing light as a defender you would not put more corruption onto the attacker.
The dark green would protect the attacker against accumulated corruption.
The problem I see in the OP is that somebody attacks and kills a green.
The other green nearby may run or stay but would decide to fight back only after the first green was killed, an action the attacker cannot predict.
The group of greens don't know either if the attacker will kill or stop, being afraid to become corrupt.
By setting the dark green color, both sides get some something useful, before the fight: the defending side gets only an information and a hint that they better run. The attacker side gets the benefit of not getting the corruption if the defenders didn't run but chose to attack instead.
Hmm, I'm having trouble picturing exactly what you're describing. Are you just saying light indicates less cumulative PKs and dark indicates many? So before combat can be initiated, players can get an idea of whether or not other non-combatants have a history of attacking?
If so, I'm not against it. I don't even see the need to prevent the dark green from getting corruption. To me it's as simple as if that player kills a player who doesn't fight back, they get some corruption. If they do it multiple times in a short period of time, that's griefing and should exponentially increase the corruption gain. But if players are fighting back, that's a PvP engagement and shouldn't grant corruption.
Oh god, where did you find that? Thats a permanent increase to corruption gain for every kill you get. This alone will completely remove OW PvP within a month if you can't get rid of those.
Ashes has many paths to OW PVP that do not include the risk of Corruption.
Well yes, but there are going to be many instances where corruption is required to defend against certain PvE griefing and attacks with the current system. Non-combatant status is a shield for any player wishing to destroy a nodes environmental management. I did offer a suggestion earlier to basically flag non-citizens gathering in other nodes to possibly prevent this. But I also think that may be a bit much. The other option was to have mayor's be able to make certain scarce resources flag PvP, to deter both citizens and non-citizens alike from over-gathering
It's a tricky one. But my suggestions aren't for allowing rampant killing. It's to focus punishments on griefing, instead of actual OW PvP engagements
If you become Corrupted, you consent to being treated like a monster until the Corruption is worked off.
Doesn't really matter if you think you were just doing some "honor PK".
Only way to grief me is non-consensual PvP.
But... I'm aware there are gamers who have the view they can be griefed via PvE.
By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point.
Bounty Hunters are associated with Military Nodes, IIRC???
They do indeed, though I think they are on the fence about only having bounty hunters at military nodes
I'm not aware having of Bounty Hunters only at Military Nodes. But, the quest to activate the BH status is at Military Nodes. I'm not aware of any hints that Steven plans to change that.
If you become Corrupted, you consent to being treated like a monster until the Corruption is worked off.
Doesn't really matter if you think you were just doing some "honor PK".
Only way to grief me is non-consensual PvP.
But... I'm aware there are gamers who have the view they can be griefed via PvE.
By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point.
Stevens definition of griefing, is actual griefing. Intent to harass other players or otherwise cause them grief, it's deliberate, requires intent, straight to the point.
If you become Corrupted, you consent to being treated like a monster until the Corruption is worked off.
Doesn't really matter if you think you were just doing some "honor PK".
Only way to grief me is non-consensual PvP.
But... I'm aware there are gamers who have the view they can be griefed via PvE.
By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point.
Stevens definition of griefing, is actual griefing. Intent to harass other players or otherwise cause them grief, it's deliberate, requires intent, straight to the point.
And it's hard to measure that.
I agree, which unfortunately requires a more complex system
@Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends?
- if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green
- if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green
The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them.
I don't see what this would really accomplish? It goes back to the opt-in result where everyone will flag as what benefits them more. Everyone would just choose light green for more protection.
No, the light green would not protect. By choosing light as a defender you would not put more corruption onto the attacker.
The dark green would protect the attacker against accumulated corruption.
The problem I see in the OP is that somebody attacks and kills a green.
The other green nearby may run or stay but would decide to fight back only after the first green was killed, an action the attacker cannot predict.
The group of greens don't know either if the attacker will kill or stop, being afraid to become corrupt.
By setting the dark green color, both sides get some something useful, before the fight: the defending side gets only an information and a hint that they better run. The attacker side gets the benefit of not getting the corruption if the defenders didn't run but chose to attack instead.
Hmm, I'm having trouble picturing exactly what you're describing. Are you just saying light indicates less cumulative PKs and dark indicates many? So before combat can be initiated, players can get an idea of whether or not other non-combatants have a history of attacking?
If so, I'm not against it. I don't even see the need to prevent the dark green from getting corruption. To me it's as simple as if that player kills a player who doesn't fight back, they get some corruption. If they do it multiple times in a short period of time, that's griefing and should exponentially increase the corruption gain. But if players are fighting back, that's a PvP engagement and shouldn't grant corruption.
Yes, that is the idea. The green player should get the information that is dealing with somebody who prefers to kill and is not intimidated by the corruption.
@Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends?
- if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green
- if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green
The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them.
I don't see what this would really accomplish? It goes back to the opt-in result where everyone will flag as what benefits them more. Everyone would just choose light green for more protection.
No, the light green would not protect. By choosing light as a defender you would not put more corruption onto the attacker.
The dark green would protect the attacker against accumulated corruption.
The problem I see in the OP is that somebody attacks and kills a green.
The other green nearby may run or stay but would decide to fight back only after the first green was killed, an action the attacker cannot predict.
The group of greens don't know either if the attacker will kill or stop, being afraid to become corrupt.
By setting the dark green color, both sides get some something useful, before the fight: the defending side gets only an information and a hint that they better run. The attacker side gets the benefit of not getting the corruption if the defenders didn't run but chose to attack instead.
Hmm, I'm having trouble picturing exactly what you're describing. Are you just saying light indicates less cumulative PKs and dark indicates many? So before combat can be initiated, players can get an idea of whether or not other non-combatants have a history of attacking?
If so, I'm not against it. I don't even see the need to prevent the dark green from getting corruption. To me it's as simple as if that player kills a player who doesn't fight back, they get some corruption. If they do it multiple times in a short period of time, that's griefing and should exponentially increase the corruption gain. But if players are fighting back, that's a PvP engagement and shouldn't grant corruption.
Yes, that is the idea. The green player should get the information that is dealing with somebody who prefers to kill and is not intimidated by the corruption.
Your reasoning assumes all corruption is griefing. When it can be as simple as dealing with PvE griefing. So it's a moot point. Now if we are complaining about getting corruption from camping players and killing lowbies who aren't fighting back...that would make more sense with your point.
See you are trying to perfect human behavior through a set of rules. If it were possible then such laws would have been made IRL and we would be living in a utopia where everyone would always be happy and shooting rainbows.
You didn’t come up in full loot MMOs or come up in hardcore PvP environments, so I don’t expect you to get it right away.
This is as hardcore as hardcore guess tbh. AoC is only somewhat hardcore.
Lets say we have honor killing guilds with special rules applied for them... What can make it so that griefers cant achieve the same? Or stop a member of that special guild from exploiting those rules at times? A guild filled to brim can't police more than a couple of nodes and actively policing isn't even fun all the time. Honor killing would need constant GM oversight for it to be effective. This isn't early 2000s. A lot of players are a lot more actively toxic now.
Again, griefing through PK is only a subset of griefing. The only way I see to lessen griefing in your games is to have a good guild and friends. People who will back you up. Its hard to define a system that can quantify intent. Hence, none exist.
My take on this:
Corruption is a way to deter PK griefing without having to jump through hoops. Griefing via mobs isn't like jumping someone from stealth and killing them in 2-3 seconds... That is a >30 second commitment to a play where if the other player is smart or attentive enough can easily get out of dodge... a very meh option overall for the griefer. This is why I am okay with the system as it is because it gets rid of all the lazy griefers right of the bat. So basically:
- Simple enough.
- Exploitable, but not straight-forward.
- Chances of failure or the situation being turned around exist as well.
I can only think of 1 way to make corruption system more effective and keep it simple at the same time:
- When a green player is attacked by an already agro-ed mob or another player, they will get immunity for 5 or so seconds. This will give the player a chance to decide if he wants to defend or not and go from there.
This way we preserve owPvP, keep corruption system simple, more effective...maybe, just maybe make the penalties associated with the system more bearable to make bounty hunter system more relevant.
Thoughts.
"Suffer in silence"
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point.
Well, my definition of griefing fits within Steven's.
But, yes, what matters, really is how Steven's definition affects the game design.
See you are trying to perfect human behavior through a set of rules. If it were possible then such laws would have been made IRL and we would be living in a utopia where everyone would always be happy and shooting rainbows.
By this logic there is no point to even have a corruption system to even attempt managing human behaviour in a game. Which is a bad idea.
My take on this:
Corruption is a way to deter PK griefing without having to jump through hoops. Griefing via mobs isn't like jumping someone from stealth and killing them in 2-3 seconds... That is a >30 second commitment to a play where if the other player is smart or attentive enough can easily get out of dodge... a very meh option overall for the griefer. This is why I am okay with the system as it is because it gets rid of all the lazy griefers right of the bat. So basically:
- Simple enough.
- Exploitable, but not straight-forward.
- Chances of failure or the situation being turned around exist as well.
I can only think of 1 way to make corruption system more effective and keep it simple at the same time:
- When a green player is attacked by an already agro-ed mob or another player, they will get immunity for 5 or so seconds. This will give the player a chance to decide if he wants to defend or not and go from there.
This way we preserve owPvP, keep corruption system simple, more effective...maybe, just maybe make the penalties associated with the system more bearable to make bounty hunter system more relevant.
Thoughts.
For starters, engagements are meant to last 30+ seconds, so as far as what we have been told, you won't be killed in 2-3 seconds by a similar level player.
Griefing isn't limited to killing a player, it also comes as using non-combatant status as a shield to destroy a nodes resources. Killing these players is a form of corrupted PK that isn't griefing. Which is why this is a flawed system.
You don't preserve World PvP by making attacking anyone in a non-griefing way an instant death sentence because they dont fight back, and retaliating the least rewarding path of engagement.
By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point.
Well, my definition of griefing fits within Steven's.
But, yes, what matters, really is how Steven's definition affects the game design.
I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing.
By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point.
Well, my definition of griefing fits within Steven's.
But, yes, what matters, really is how Steven's definition affects the game design.
And your definition is fine, just like your preference for PvP to not be around you in the open world.
Honoring that is easy. But not everyone is Dygz and we honor PKs are going to lend a hand.
Your reasoning assumes all corruption is griefing. When it can be as simple as dealing with PvE griefing. So it's a moot point. Now if we are complaining about getting corruption from camping players and killing lowbies who aren't fighting back...that would make more sense with your point.
See you are trying to perfect human behavior through a set of rules. If it were possible then such laws would have been made IRL and we would be living in a utopia where everyone would always be happy and shooting rainbows.
You didn’t come up in full loot MMOs or come up in hardcore PvP environments, so I don’t expect you to get it right away.
This is as hardcore as hardcore guess tbh. AoC is only somewhat hardcore.
Lets say we have honor killing guilds with special rules applied for them... What can make it so that griefers cant achieve the same? Or stop a member of that special guild from exploiting those rules at times? A guild filled to brim can't police more than a couple of nodes and actively policing isn't even fun all the time. Honor killing would need constant GM oversight for it to be effective. This isn't early 2000s. A lot of players are a lot more actively toxic now.
Honor PvP guilds =/= Honor Killings, Honor PvP players aren't a police force. We're not trying to police anything, the we just have rules of engagement in which we operate with and conduct ourselves in a certain way.
Players are more actively toxic, but that's the thing about honor PKs, we're easy to spot. We don't kill noobs, we don't go after anyone who we can easily pick apart. We are interested in equal or greater fights, but those rules do not apply to griefers and grief play; they are free game. We're not trying to make the community safe, our actions do actively and indirectly help many of the community.
I'm not trying to take a list of every shit bag on a server and hunt them down, but if I see someone getting griefed or someone get killed who cannot actively fight back because they're not at that level or just a flower picker or crafter. We will kill the griefer, of course the exception being if that flower picker or crafter is a known griefer. Then they can have at each other, won't give a shit.
Griefers are fair game, we go for fights of equal skill or greater. We don't zerg one person down and honor requests for 1 v 1 if someone is greatly out numbered; if they win they get to walk away.
Again, griefing through PK is only a subset of griefing. The only way I see to lessen griefing in your games is to have a good guild and friends. People who will back you up. Its hard to define a system that can quantify intent. Hence, none exist.
My take on this:
Corruption is a way to deter PK griefing without having to jump through hoops. Griefing via mobs isn't like jumping someone from stealth and killing them in 2-3 seconds... That is a >30 second commitment to a play where if the other player is smart or attentive enough can easily get out of dodge... a very meh option overall for the griefer. This is why I am okay with the system as it is because it gets rid of all the lazy griefers right of the bat. So basically:
- Simple enough.
- Exploitable, but not straight-forward.
- Chances of failure or the situation being turned around exist as well.
As it stands it'll cause problems,
-It wont stop someone from flagging on the guy who just stole their shit and it punishes that player for trying to get their shit back.
-It'll punish others from helping someone else to get their shit back.
-Corruption bombing will become a thing.
-It lets other types of griefers to hide behind the system instead of worrying all of the time, instead of part off the time.
-It's lacks context, because no one knows why someone is corrupted, corrupted =/= griefer.
I can only think of 1 way to make corruption system more effective and keep it simple at the same time:
- When a green player is attacked by an already agro-ed mob or another player, they will get immunity for 5 or so seconds. This will give the player a chance to decide if he wants to defend or not and go from there.
This way we preserve owPvP, keep corruption system simple, more effective...maybe, just maybe make the penalties associated with the system more bearable to make bounty hunter system more relevant.
Thoughts.
The corruption system is too simple and will be ineffective in the broader picture.
@Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends?
- if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green
- if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green
The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them.
no. no warning people that you like attacking others. suspense is more fun. plus that means they will set attack first n stuff :P
Your reasoning assumes all corruption is griefing. When it can be as simple as dealing with PvE griefing. So it's a moot point. Now if we are complaining about getting corruption from camping players and killing lowbies who aren't fighting back...that would make more sense with your point.
See you are trying to perfect human behavior through a set of rules. If it were possible then such laws would have been made IRL and we would be living in a utopia where everyone would always be happy and shooting rainbows.
You didn’t come up in full loot MMOs or come up in hardcore PvP environments, so I don’t expect you to get it right away.
This is as hardcore as hardcore guess tbh. AoC is only somewhat hardcore.
Lets say we have honor killing guilds with special rules applied for them... What can make it so that griefers cant achieve the same? Or stop a member of that special guild from exploiting those rules at times? A guild filled to brim can't police more than a couple of nodes and actively policing isn't even fun all the time. Honor killing would need constant GM oversight for it to be effective. This isn't early 2000s. A lot of players are a lot more actively toxic now.
Again, griefing through PK is only a subset of griefing. The only way I see to lessen griefing in your games is to have a good guild and friends. People who will back you up. Its hard to define a system that can quantify intent. Hence, none exist.
My take on this:
Corruption is a way to deter PK griefing without having to jump through hoops. Griefing via mobs isn't like jumping someone from stealth and killing them in 2-3 seconds... That is a >30 second commitment to a play where if the other player is smart or attentive enough can easily get out of dodge... a very meh option overall for the griefer. This is why I am okay with the system as it is because it gets rid of all the lazy griefers right of the bat. So basically:
- Simple enough.
- Exploitable, but not straight-forward.
- Chances of failure or the situation being turned around exist as well.
I can only think of 1 way to make corruption system more effective and keep it simple at the same time:
- When a green player is attacked by an already agro-ed mob or another player, they will get immunity for 5 or so seconds. This will give the player a chance to decide if he wants to defend or not and go from there.
This way we preserve owPvP, keep corruption system simple, more effective...maybe, just maybe make the penalties associated with the system more bearable to make bounty hunter system more relevant.
Thoughts.
cant jump from stealth and kill someone in 2-3 seconds here. also thats not griefing. also pking isnt griefing.
By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point.
Well, my definition of griefing fits within Steven's.
But, yes, what matters, really is how Steven's definition affects the game design.
well, u think that if you are picking flowers and you arent in the mood for pvp and someone coms and kills you, that is griefing. it isnt. and steven definition is different.
@Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends?
- if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green
- if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green
The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them.
no. no warning people that you like attacking others. suspense is more fun. plus that means they will set attack first n stuff :P
The OP is about a player becoming corrupt and nearby greens attaching afterwards and being killed too, not because they let themselves killed but the corrupt player is a really good fighter and decides to hold his ground and fight them.
Attacking first might not be a significant advantage. I see that there is enough time on both sides to decide what to do:
The Ashes of Creation MMORPG will have a time-to-kill (TTK) of around 30 seconds to a minute.[1]
The time-to-kill needs to be strategic and tactical.[2] – Steven Sharif
I wonder if anyone can be killed while running away on a mount.
Can a potential aggressor know if the bags a mule carries are loaded with valuable stuff?
also no. reduces the risk and increases the rewardbecause now you can select who to pk.
yeah ttk is 30 seconds but if i hit you a few times before the fight starts, you arent full hp anymore..so now ttk is 15 seconds. also we dont know if ttk is with 1 person attacking you or 4 dps in a party attacking you. people were dying quite fast in a1, probs still wasnt balanced hehehe
Can a potential aggressor know if the bags a mule carries are loaded with valuable stuff?
also no. reduces the risk and increases the rewardbecause now you can select who to pk.
yeah ttk is 30 seconds but if i hit you a few times before the fight starts, you arent full hp anymore..so now ttk is 15 seconds. also we dont know if ttk is with 1 person attacking you or 4 dps in a party attacking you. people were dying quite fast in a1, probs still wasnt balanced hehehe
I believe it was said that caravans do show some semblance of what they are carrying. But I could be wrong.
Can a potential aggressor know if the bags a mule carries are loaded with valuable stuff?
also no. reduces the risk and increases the rewardbecause now you can select who to pk.
yeah ttk is 30 seconds but if i hit you a few times before the fight starts, you arent full hp anymore..so now ttk is 15 seconds. also we dont know if ttk is with 1 person attacking you or 4 dps in a party attacking you. people were dying quite fast in a1, probs still wasnt balanced hehehe
I believe it was said that caravans do show some semblance of what they are carrying. But I could be wrong.
Can a potential aggressor know if the bags a mule carries are loaded with valuable stuff?
also no. reduces the risk and increases the rewardbecause now you can select who to pk.
yeah ttk is 30 seconds but if i hit you a few times before the fight starts, you arent full hp anymore..so now ttk is 15 seconds. also we dont know if ttk is with 1 person attacking you or 4 dps in a party attacking you. people were dying quite fast in a1, probs still wasnt balanced hehehe
Also Ttk kill is meant to be 30+ seconds. So if you're engaged by someone, don't take 5 to 10 seconds to evaluate and determine whether or not to fight back, assess quickly and decide quickly. If you hesitate, that's your fault, and should likely just take the L and give corruption
Comments
- if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green
- if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green
The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them.
I've listed many, but generally what I've stated is to make it so early corruption is not detrimental, to accomodate for non griefing kills, and to not rapidly increase that corruption when you defend yourself. This allows players to take initial shots at non combatant griefers, and spend time working off their corruption, which spaces out their engagements so it isn't considered camping.
And if there is a group vs 1, especially 1 who is debuffed by corruption already, that will be an easy kill for that group. If they are low level, they'll grant even more corruption initially, providing a much bigger debuff.
I fully support punishing actual griefing, but not at the expense of legitimate PvP.
I don't see what this would really accomplish? It goes back to the opt-in result where everyone will flag as what benefits them more. Everyone would just choose light green for more protection.
No, the light green would not protect. By choosing light as a defender you would not put more corruption onto the attacker.
The dark green would protect the attacker against accumulated corruption.
The problem I see in the OP is that somebody attacks and kills a green.
The other green nearby may run or stay but would decide to fight back only after the first green was killed, an action the attacker cannot predict.
The group of greens don't know either if the attacker will kill or stop, being afraid to become corrupt.
By setting the dark green color, both sides get some something useful, before the fight: the defending side gets only an information and a hint that they better run. The attacker side gets the benefit of not getting the corruption if the defenders didn't run but chose to attack instead.
Yep, griefing takes place everywhere.
Doesn't really matter if you think you were just doing some "honor PK".
Only way to grief me is non-consensual PvP.
But... I'm aware there are gamers who have the view they can be griefed via PvE.
Hmm, I'm having trouble picturing exactly what you're describing. Are you just saying light indicates less cumulative PKs and dark indicates many? So before combat can be initiated, players can get an idea of whether or not other non-combatants have a history of attacking?
If so, I'm not against it. I don't even see the need to prevent the dark green from getting corruption. To me it's as simple as if that player kills a player who doesn't fight back, they get some corruption. If they do it multiple times in a short period of time, that's griefing and should exponentially increase the corruption gain. But if players are fighting back, that's a PvP engagement and shouldn't grant corruption.
Well yes, but there are going to be many instances where corruption is required to defend against certain PvE griefing and attacks with the current system. Non-combatant status is a shield for any player wishing to destroy a nodes environmental management. I did offer a suggestion earlier to basically flag non-citizens gathering in other nodes to possibly prevent this. But I also think that may be a bit much. The other option was to have mayor's be able to make certain scarce resources flag PvP, to deter both citizens and non-citizens alike from over-gathering
It's a tricky one. But my suggestions aren't for allowing rampant killing. It's to focus punishments on griefing, instead of actual OW PvP engagements
By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point.
Livestream, June 26, 2020 (1:50:24).
Stevens definition of griefing, is actual griefing. Intent to harass other players or otherwise cause them grief, it's deliberate, requires intent, straight to the point.
And it's hard to measure that.
I agree, which unfortunately requires a more complex system
Yes, that is the idea. The green player should get the information that is dealing with somebody who prefers to kill and is not intimidated by the corruption.
I don't see a problem with that honestly
See you are trying to perfect human behavior through a set of rules. If it were possible then such laws would have been made IRL and we would be living in a utopia where everyone would always be happy and shooting rainbows.
This is as hardcore as hardcore guess tbh. AoC is only somewhat hardcore.
Lets say we have honor killing guilds with special rules applied for them... What can make it so that griefers cant achieve the same? Or stop a member of that special guild from exploiting those rules at times? A guild filled to brim can't police more than a couple of nodes and actively policing isn't even fun all the time. Honor killing would need constant GM oversight for it to be effective. This isn't early 2000s. A lot of players are a lot more actively toxic now.
Again, griefing through PK is only a subset of griefing. The only way I see to lessen griefing in your games is to have a good guild and friends. People who will back you up. Its hard to define a system that can quantify intent. Hence, none exist.
My take on this:
Corruption is a way to deter PK griefing without having to jump through hoops. Griefing via mobs isn't like jumping someone from stealth and killing them in 2-3 seconds... That is a >30 second commitment to a play where if the other player is smart or attentive enough can easily get out of dodge... a very meh option overall for the griefer. This is why I am okay with the system as it is because it gets rid of all the lazy griefers right of the bat. So basically:
- Simple enough.
- Exploitable, but not straight-forward.
- Chances of failure or the situation being turned around exist as well.
I can only think of 1 way to make corruption system more effective and keep it simple at the same time:
- When a green player is attacked by an already agro-ed mob or another player, they will get immunity for 5 or so seconds. This will give the player a chance to decide if he wants to defend or not and go from there.
This way we preserve owPvP, keep corruption system simple, more effective...maybe, just maybe make the penalties associated with the system more bearable to make bounty hunter system more relevant.
Thoughts.
But, yes, what matters, really is how Steven's definition affects the game design.
By this logic there is no point to even have a corruption system to even attempt managing human behaviour in a game. Which is a bad idea.
For starters, engagements are meant to last 30+ seconds, so as far as what we have been told, you won't be killed in 2-3 seconds by a similar level player.
Griefing isn't limited to killing a player, it also comes as using non-combatant status as a shield to destroy a nodes resources. Killing these players is a form of corrupted PK that isn't griefing. Which is why this is a flawed system.
You don't preserve World PvP by making attacking anyone in a non-griefing way an instant death sentence because they dont fight back, and retaliating the least rewarding path of engagement.
I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing.
And your definition is fine, just like your preference for PvP to not be around you in the open world.
Honoring that is easy. But not everyone is Dygz and we honor PKs are going to lend a hand.
Honor PvP guilds =/= Honor Killings, Honor PvP players aren't a police force. We're not trying to police anything, the we just have rules of engagement in which we operate with and conduct ourselves in a certain way.
Players are more actively toxic, but that's the thing about honor PKs, we're easy to spot. We don't kill noobs, we don't go after anyone who we can easily pick apart. We are interested in equal or greater fights, but those rules do not apply to griefers and grief play; they are free game. We're not trying to make the community safe, our actions do actively and indirectly help many of the community.
I'm not trying to take a list of every shit bag on a server and hunt them down, but if I see someone getting griefed or someone get killed who cannot actively fight back because they're not at that level or just a flower picker or crafter. We will kill the griefer, of course the exception being if that flower picker or crafter is a known griefer. Then they can have at each other, won't give a shit.
Griefers are fair game, we go for fights of equal skill or greater. We don't zerg one person down and honor requests for 1 v 1 if someone is greatly out numbered; if they win they get to walk away.
As it stands it'll cause problems,
-It wont stop someone from flagging on the guy who just stole their shit and it punishes that player for trying to get their shit back.
-It'll punish others from helping someone else to get their shit back.
-Corruption bombing will become a thing.
-It lets other types of griefers to hide behind the system instead of worrying all of the time, instead of part off the time.
-It's lacks context, because no one knows why someone is corrupted, corrupted =/= griefer.
The corruption system is too simple and will be ineffective in the broader picture.
no. no warning people that you like attacking others. suspense is more fun. plus that means they will set attack first n stuff :P
cant jump from stealth and kill someone in 2-3 seconds here. also thats not griefing. also pking isnt griefing.
well, u think that if you are picking flowers and you arent in the mood for pvp and someone coms and kills you, that is griefing. it isnt. and steven definition is different.
The OP is about a player becoming corrupt and nearby greens attaching afterwards and being killed too, not because they let themselves killed but the corrupt player is a really good fighter and decides to hold his ground and fight them.
Attacking first might not be a significant advantage. I see that there is enough time on both sides to decide what to do:
The Ashes of Creation MMORPG will have a time-to-kill (TTK) of around 30 seconds to a minute.[1]
The time-to-kill needs to be strategic and tactical.[2] – Steven Sharif
I wonder if anyone can be killed while running away on a mount.
also no. reduces the risk and increases the rewardbecause now you can select who to pk.
yeah ttk is 30 seconds but if i hit you a few times before the fight starts, you arent full hp anymore..so now ttk is 15 seconds. also we dont know if ttk is with 1 person attacking you or 4 dps in a party attacking you. people were dying quite fast in a1, probs still wasnt balanced hehehe
I believe it was said that caravans do show some semblance of what they are carrying. But I could be wrong.
thats an event, you cant go red doing caravans
Also Ttk kill is meant to be 30+ seconds. So if you're engaged by someone, don't take 5 to 10 seconds to evaluate and determine whether or not to fight back, assess quickly and decide quickly. If you hesitate, that's your fault, and should likely just take the L and give corruption