Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. then there is no point..i could spend 10 hours killing you, as long as i cleanse the corruption first.
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter.
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.
Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Dolyem wrote: » I am actually loving this discussion because it is adding to my list of what to focus on testing in A2
Dolyem wrote: » . Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I don't know why, but factions popped into my brain. Possibly factions could give reason for pk via factional enemies. Kind of like guilds at war, but this would cater to more of the loner who could join npc factions. I dunno, just spitballing. I am personally very against factions. What almost always tends to happen is once one faction even gets slightly ahead in numbers, a tidal wave of players flood into that one, completely unbalancing that system.
Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I don't know why, but factions popped into my brain. Possibly factions could give reason for pk via factional enemies. Kind of like guilds at war, but this would cater to more of the loner who could join npc factions. I dunno, just spitballing.
Ravicus wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » . Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I don't know why, but factions popped into my brain. Possibly factions could give reason for pk via factional enemies. Kind of like guilds at war, but this would cater to more of the loner who could join npc factions. I dunno, just spitballing. I am personally very against factions. What almost always tends to happen is once one faction even gets slightly ahead in numbers, a tidal wave of players flood into that one, completely unbalancing that system. I guess the same can be said for guilds, people will flock to the most powerful ones. But that is not my point. The point is that it creates meaningful pvp action. It creates a reason to contest an area. I do understand your point about factions, but maybe something simular.
HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red.
Raven016 wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » . Ravicus wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I don't know why, but factions popped into my brain. Possibly factions could give reason for pk via factional enemies. Kind of like guilds at war, but this would cater to more of the loner who could join npc factions. I dunno, just spitballing. I am personally very against factions. What almost always tends to happen is once one faction even gets slightly ahead in numbers, a tidal wave of players flood into that one, completely unbalancing that system. I guess the same can be said for guilds, people will flock to the most powerful ones. But that is not my point. The point is that it creates meaningful pvp action. It creates a reason to contest an area. I do understand your point about factions, but maybe something simular. I see players going behind their metropolises and act as those are their factions. We will have 5 factions + neutral nodes
NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this
Raven016 wrote: » Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different.
Raven016 wrote: » HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red. Nice finding. With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked. Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes. While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it.
Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different. But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red. Nice finding. With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked. Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes. While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it. how is it good if not a single one of those kills are actually griefing?
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different. But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system. Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. Though some seem to be unable to see the difference between corruption for griefing and corruption to defend ones node.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red. Nice finding. With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked. Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes. While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it. how is it good if not a single one of those kills are actually griefing? I will assume there is no griefing in this game until I see somebody in an emotional grief state. If is just a bit upset or even very upset, that is for me just a player which has chosen the wrong game. When I say good, it is from Steven's perspective. Not from player's perspective which want to kill. Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different. But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system. Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. Though some seem to be unable to see the difference between corruption for griefing and corruption to defend ones node. The way how the game is setup, seems to want to create uncertainty. You harvest wood and you see a green. You hope is a nice peaceful player but it comes and kills you. If you could know it is a player who kills often other players, you could run. But the game want's to hide such players behind a fake green color meaning peaceful non combatant. But this cumulative PK value is acting as a game rule, not visible to the player but still punishing the one which kills too often.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red. Nice finding. With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked. Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes. While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it. how is it good if not a single one of those kills are actually griefing? I will assume there is no griefing in this game until I see somebody in an emotional grief state. If is just a bit upset or even very upset, that is for me just a player which has chosen the wrong game. When I say good, it is from Steven's perspective. Not from player's perspective which want to kill. Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different. But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system. Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. Though some seem to be unable to see the difference between corruption for griefing and corruption to defend ones node. The way how the game is setup, seems to want to create uncertainty. You harvest wood and you see a green. You hope is a nice peaceful player but it comes and kills you. If you could know it is a player who kills often other players, you could run. But the game want's to hide such players behind a fake green color meaning peaceful non combatant. But this cumulative PK value is acting as a game rule, not visible to the player but still punishing the one which kills too often. We have Stevens very own definition of griefingGriefing in Ashes of Creation is defined as impacting another player's gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. It is something that is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] So following that, and the fact that corruptions sole purpose is to deter that. PKing non-combatants purposely trying to harm your node is not griefing. It has nothing to do with ones emotional state. It purely depends on ones intent. In other words, camping or killing low level players, or barring someone from content for the sole purpose of harassing the player. So if a player has only accrued PKs through non-griefing corruption kills, it is a bad design.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red. Nice finding. With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked. Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes. While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it. how is it good if not a single one of those kills are actually griefing? I will assume there is no griefing in this game until I see somebody in an emotional grief state. If is just a bit upset or even very upset, that is for me just a player which has chosen the wrong game. When I say good, it is from Steven's perspective. Not from player's perspective which want to kill. Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different. But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system. Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. Though some seem to be unable to see the difference between corruption for griefing and corruption to defend ones node. The way how the game is setup, seems to want to create uncertainty. You harvest wood and you see a green. You hope is a nice peaceful player but it comes and kills you. If you could know it is a player who kills often other players, you could run. But the game want's to hide such players behind a fake green color meaning peaceful non combatant. But this cumulative PK value is acting as a game rule, not visible to the player but still punishing the one which kills too often. We have Stevens very own definition of griefingGriefing in Ashes of Creation is defined as impacting another player's gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. It is something that is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] So following that, and the fact that corruptions sole purpose is to deter that. PKing non-combatants purposely trying to harm your node is not griefing. It has nothing to do with ones emotional state. It purely depends on ones intent. In other words, camping or killing low level players, or barring someone from content for the sole purpose of harassing the player. So if a player has only accrued PKs through non-griefing corruption kills, it is a bad design. Steven has not communicated yet everything and tests must till be done in Alpha 2. Changes will be made. For low level players we have to see how the leveling areas are made. I see easier ways to deal with that than adjusting the corruption mechanic to allow players to punish those who they perceive as griefers. A low level trying to level up is a different scenario from a low level going to over harvest enemy node's resources. Steven sets up the game in a complicated way and it might be that there is no solution to everything. Players have to deal with that. Maybe is better that way that having an ideal setting where you can do only what Steven wants. After 100 caravans I might call this "the caravan game", if I have no choice but to do them.
