The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path.
The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player.
If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away.
There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not.
Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk.
You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players.
If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple.
Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens.
It doesn't matter when the player turned red. They should know not to approach settlements until they've worked off that corruption.
And players coming to avenge their PK'd group mate is a risk you know every time you start combat, that you chose to go red doesn't change that the base play pattern is 'people come back for revenge'.
Reds don't need to be safeguarded, you need to weigh the risk first, not complain about the consequences after you already accepted to go red.
cant work off the red if green players can just throw themself at you leaving u the option of just dieing, killing them and getting more curruption or forcing them to run away potentialy dieing in the process. its a loose loose situation for the red player and no matter the outcome a win win for the green player since u can just run back and locate them again and go again and now there a bigger reward potential since there deeper in corruption potentialy causing more equipment to drop from them
Those are all consequences you know in advance, and something you should be weighing in to your decision making before you attack a green.
If they don't think it's worth defending enough to flag up, and you don't think it's worth the consequences, why did you choose to go red in the first place?
I see BH’s as more of a PvP progression system outside of lawless zones kind of like the PvP Progression or Battle Pass system in New World where you get XP based on PvP contribution. The thing that needs to be looked at is how is the BH system different to a standard PvP progression system assuming they’ll have a separate system for that too.
The system is there to stop reds carelessly attacking greens and griefing them without any consequences. The BH’s counter the hostile reds who would harass the green or average players. Anyways a true PvPer would just do wars, sieges or go to lawless zones there’s no fun in flagging red to bully greens. Again this is separate from the caravan system or PvX events in the open world as you’re initiating those plus know the risks. We don’t need to protect the reds!
Flagging red or becoming corrupted is probably just a good way to practice ganking but comes with consequence, however gankers will group up so it won’t be just one hostile red you’re facing if the game allows it there will be a party of them.
The thing is the BH system is one of the key offerings of going a military node where economy nodes get auction houses, Science gets teleports, and Divine gets a vast open world dungeon. The progression of a bounty hunter needs to be a bit more meaningful than "you can see a red within 50 yards on the map" to "you can see red players within 150 yards on the map". I agree with the bounty hunter being a deterent, but they should be more than just that if they one of the key features of a military node.
I see BH’s as more of a PvP progression system outside of lawless zones kind of like the PvP Progression or Battle Pass system in New World where you get XP based on PvP contribution. The thing that needs to be looked at is how is the BH system different to a standard PvP progression system assuming they’ll have a separate system for that too.
The system is there to stop reds carelessly attacking greens and griefing them without any consequences. The BH’s counter the hostile reds who would harass the green or average players. Anyways a true PvPer would just do wars, sieges or go to lawless zones there’s no fun in flagging red to bully greens. Again this is separate from the caravan system or PvX events in the open world as you’re initiating those plus know the risks. We don’t need to protect the reds!
Flagging red or becoming corrupted is probably just a good way to practice ganking but comes with consequence, however gankers will group up so it won’t be just one hostile red you’re facing if the game allows it there will be a party of them.
The thing is the BH system is one of the key offerings of going a military node where economy nodes get auction houses, Science gets teleports, and Divine gets a vast open world dungeon. The progression of a bounty hunter needs to be a bit more meaningful than "you can see a red within 50 yards on the map" to "you can see red players within 150 yards on the map". I agree with the bounty hunter being a deterent, but they should be more than just that if they one of the key features of a military node.
Agreed however that’s where you have a rewards system for bounty hunting and PvP contributions. Exclusive rewards, contracts, reputation system, PvE bounties for monsters or NPC’s of another node, perks such as tax reduction or discounts on military equipment etc.
There are ways to also tie this into faction missions, node warfare, intelligence gathering or espionage, influence and leadership in the military node. There are a lot of ways to combine this into other or more dynamic systems in the game.
The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path.
The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player.
If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away.
There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not.
Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk.
You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players.
If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple.
Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens.
It doesn't matter when the player turned red. They should know not to approach settlements until they've worked off that corruption.
And players coming to avenge their PK'd group mate is a risk you know every time you start combat, that you chose to go red doesn't change that the base play pattern is 'people come back for revenge'.
Reds don't need to be safeguarded, you need to weigh the risk first, not complain about the consequences after you already accepted to go red.
cant work off the red if green players can just throw themself at you leaving u the option of just dieing, killing them and getting more curruption or forcing them to run away potentialy dieing in the process. its a loose loose situation for the red player and no matter the outcome a win win for the green player since u can just run back and locate them again and go again and now there a bigger reward potential since there deeper in corruption potentialy causing more equipment to drop from them
Those are all consequences you know in advance, and something you should be weighing in to your decision making before you attack a green.
If they don't think it's worth defending enough to flag up, and you don't think it's worth the consequences, why did you choose to go red in the first place?
He thought the green was bluffing and will flag up right before dying to reduce the losses.
The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path.
The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player.
If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away.
There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not.
Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk.
You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players.
If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple.
Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens.
It doesn't matter when the player turned red. They should know not to approach settlements until they've worked off that corruption.
And players coming to avenge their PK'd group mate is a risk you know every time you start combat, that you chose to go red doesn't change that the base play pattern is 'people come back for revenge'.
Reds don't need to be safeguarded, you need to weigh the risk first, not complain about the consequences after you already accepted to go red.
cant work off the red if green players can just throw themself at you leaving u the option of just dieing, killing them and getting more curruption or forcing them to run away potentialy dieing in the process. its a loose loose situation for the red player and no matter the outcome a win win for the green player since u can just run back and locate them again and go again and now there a bigger reward potential since there deeper in corruption potentialy causing more equipment to drop from them
Those are all consequences you know in advance, and something you should be weighing in to your decision making before you attack a green.
If they don't think it's worth defending enough to flag up, and you don't think it's worth the consequences, why did you choose to go red in the first place?
He thought the green was bluffing and will flag up right before dying to reduce the losses.
So what? They made a mistake, took a gamble they didn't need to take, and they now have consequences for their choices. That's reasonable.
Decide before you attack if it's worth going red. Playing mind games with yourself isn't gonna do you any good. If you want their stuff, commit to that PK. If you don't know they've got something worth taking, don't commit to the PK.
So what? They made a mistake, took a gamble they didn't need to take, and they now have consequences for their choices. That's reasonable.
Decide before you attack if it's worth going red. Playing mind games with yourself isn't gonna do you any good. If you want their stuff, commit to that PK. If you don't know they've got something worth taking, don't commit to the PK.
Are you that fiercely against PKs, Caeryl?
I like the current corruption setup too ... but I'd hate to see white knighting of the current system at the risk of not being inclusive of other player feedback.
In Ashes of Creation, there will definitely be times where a PK will be worth it. As well as times where a green will fight back against a red and lose.
So what? They made a mistake, took a gamble they didn't need to take, and they now have consequences for their choices. That's reasonable.
Decide before you attack if it's worth going red. Playing mind games with yourself isn't gonna do you any good. If you want their stuff, commit to that PK. If you don't know they've got something worth taking, don't commit to the PK.
Are you that fiercely against PKs, Caeryl?
I like the current corruption setup too ... but I'd hate to see white knighting of the current system at the risk of not being inclusive of other player feedback.
In Ashes of Creation, there will definitely be times where a PK will be worth it. As well as times where a green will fight back against a red and lose.
I'm perfectly fine with PKs, but this whole thread is some woe-is-solo-red mentality.
Player feedback has to be usable. 'I want to remove an entire facet of the flagging system because I can't ignore the consequence of PvP with greens after I inflicted PvP on a green' isn't usable feedback.
Just eat the consequences, they are not that bad. Dip out of the scene for a little while with your group of allies if you really don't want to fight any potential greens. Your group can heal you if greens try to attack, greens at double risk to their own drops since they can't flag up purple on you, and if they want to actually kill you they have to attack your purple-flagged healers first, which means you're free to wipe the floor with them.
PK done to benefit groups will probably be pretty common in fights over certain boss areas. Scouts would be prime PK targets as it takes eyes off what a rival guild is doing for as long as it takes them to run back to the dungeon/raid/etc.
Solo PKing, which is the only scenario the OP's fear could even be possible, isn't something that's worth making protective clauses for.
I personally like the method in place currently, because it helps solidify that corruption should be avoided. I would also like there being some threshold if there is an immense level disparity, but that might get... finicky.
[ RP nerd & Dog mom ♥ Always down to hear a good story. ]
Corrupted players are, essentially, monsters just like other corrupted NPCs (this is why they can't interact with storage or crafting tables and are KOS to guards)
There's no reason for a green player to need to flag up to kill monsters.
What this does is loosen up the restrictions on red players a bit and discourages greens from turning around to kill reds just because a swarm of other players rolled by.
This is contrary to the goal of the system. That is exactly one of the restrictions that is intended for corrupted players.
He thought the green was bluffing and will flag up right before dying to reduce the losses.
Pff nope. If I'm not fighting back instantly then I want you to suffer corruption and everything that comes with it. There's no mind games at all in this interaction.
In most cases the corruption penalties for you are way worse than whatever percent of mats I would lose while green comparaed to while purple.
I'd only fight back if I think I can win (and it's worth my effort) - not to save some percent of mats. Otherwise I'm happy to let you eat the corruption.
I suggested it before, but I feel like mobs being able to remove their corruption by killing other mobs (through mob faction fights or something similar) would go a long way in equating PKers to mobs.
I suggested it before, but I feel like mobs being able to remove their corruption by killing other mobs (through mob faction fights or something similar) would go a long way in equating PKers to mobs.
Only if they desire to, and they tend not to.
Players tend to have an incentive that other mobs don't in removing their corruption.
He thought the green was bluffing and will flag up right before dying to reduce the losses.
Pff nope. If I'm not fighting back instantly then I want you to suffer corruption and everything that comes with it. There's no mind games at all in this interaction.
In most cases the corruption penalties for you are way worse than whatever percent of mats I would lose while green comparaed to while purple.
I'd only fight back if I think I can win (and it's worth my effort) - not to save some percent of mats. Otherwise I'm happy to let you eat the corruption.
Not true.
If I have resources and I face one stronger player or 2 other players, I will attempt to run away.
The game mechanics which prevent CC on green were added after a crazy youtuber posted a video.
Now that they exist, I have a reason to try to flee.
When I am close to die I can turn and fight back to flag and lose fewer resources.
Sometime I might escape sometime I might die flagged.
The fact that the attackers don't see the full health bar can make them kill me before I manage to turn around, especially if some NPC interferes.
And this is a game mechanic which I see as fun and I see no reason to punish players because they dared to kill another player. This is not a pure PvE game and corruption is not supposed to be a place holder for that PvP on-off flag from New World.
Players need to kill each-other and Bounty Hunters must be a viable game-play mechanic.
This is part of the risk vs reward design pillar.
Corrupted players are, essentially, monsters just like other corrupted NPCs (this is why they can't interact with storage or crafting tables and are KOS to guards)
There's no reason for a green player to need to flag up to kill monsters.
No, they are not monsters. They are maybe on the path of becoming monsters but they are not yet. Even Dygz would call fighting red players as a PvP activity rather than a PvE one because he sees the humanity in them.
Guards attack red players to protect cities from becoming a place where you get killed near a bank.
Storage is not accessible to prevent loopholes where the red can dump inventory before being killed by bounty hunters. Whatever NPCs we fight, if they have weapons it means they know the technology to create them and can open storage too if needed. Calling them monsters is a human way of labeling those who sided with The Others.
I'm perfectly fine with PKs, but this whole thread is some woe-is-solo-red mentality.
Players can be the last survivor of a group trying to use the green mechanic to escape. They can be a healer and holding resources in their inventory. The attacking group might also have only 1-2 remaining survivors.
And I see no reason to dismiss game mechanic improvements just because the arguments are analyzed with small number of participants.
Green attacking anyone should make them a combatant since they initiated it
Well if you’re flagged red you’ve already accepted that risk that you could be attacked or plan to attack someone. There’s no reason to initiate greens as combatants as they can only attack or respond to reds.
if the green attacks a red they saying right i accept pvp so should become combatant since at that stage they now opted into pvp which is what the whole flagging system is for.
Also whats the point of bounty hunter system if it now becomes safer to hunt reds as a green since if your bounty hunter you can be killed and not make the corruption worst and as a green player u kleave the red player the option to run away, die or make your curruption worst. You know whats gonna happen is there be 1 bounty hunter using the tracking ability to find red players and they just send green player friend to actually kil the red player while they stay back safely so he can never escape due to always being able to track them.
However if the green kills the red then surely the BH player won’t get any rewards. There is no point sending greens to do it as it won’t contribute to BH progression. Maybe they need a system as well where when you’re doing bounty hunting you can only invite other BH’s to your party as you would all be flagged the same for PvP. I honestly just prefer the lawless zone concept where everyone knows the risks and what they’re getting into.
In Albion Online you can flag for PvP as a red and attack normal players who can respond but it doesn’t also make them flagged hostile for defending themselves. The black zone which is kind of like the lawless zone you know what you’re getting into as it’s a PvP/PvX zone.
What I said the first time was correct about BH being purple as that’s flagged as a combatant but not corrupted. A green can attack a red and incur no change in status it’s exactly like Albion’s flagging system except corrupted are just Reds flagged as hostile for PvP. BH’s outside of the lawless zone would be classed as purple of which if they attack a green they become Red or corrupted. If a green attacks a purple they become a combatant so also Purple. The system is good very balanced however my first assumption of how it works is correct regardless of it’s a status or flagging system it still works the same way. I also don’t see greens as people who want to get into conflict in the first place that’s why they’re green but have the right to defend themselves from Reds or hostile players.
I see BH’s as more of a PvP progression system outside of lawless zones kind of like the PvP Progression or Battle Pass system in New World where you get XP based on PvP contribution. The thing that needs to be looked at is how is the BH system different to a standard PvP progression system assuming they’ll have a separate system for that too.
The system is there to stop reds carelessly attacking greens and griefing them without any consequences. The BH’s counter the hostile reds who would harass the green or average players. Anyways a true PvPer would just do wars, sieges or go to lawless zones there’s no fun in flagging red to bully greens. Again this is separate from the caravan system or PvX events in the open world as you’re initiating those plus know the risks. We don’t need to protect the reds!
Flagging red or becoming corrupted is probably just a good way to practice ganking but comes with consequence, however gankers will group up so it won’t be just one hostile red you’re facing if the game allows it there will be a party of them.
i see BH sending green to weaken a target then finish them off, BH will be incentivised to use greens with current system since if they kill the green BH get more reward to kill them since there now more corrupt, having green players in the fight also means the red target now has an enemy they cant attack and have to avoid while there fighting the BH at the same time if they do kill the green then the BH gets more reward so it a win win for them.
Not to mention with current set up green players are immune to CC effect so they have a further advantage in a fight especially when red players will also most likly be under the effect of stat dampening aswell.
If a green attacks anyone they should be purple no matter what by attacking they say yes im ok to PvP and when the flagging system in place to reduce involuntary pvp (killing somone who doesnt want to fight) by punishing that player by corrupting them then it not needed if the green player go o look ima attack you i opt into this pvp situation
The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path.
The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player.
If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away.
There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not.
Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk.
You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players.
If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple.
Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens.
It doesn't matter when the player turned red. They should know not to approach settlements until they've worked off that corruption.
And players coming to avenge their PK'd group mate is a risk you know every time you start combat, that you chose to go red doesn't change that the base play pattern is 'people come back for revenge'.
Reds don't need to be safeguarded, you need to weigh the risk first, not complain about the consequences after you already accepted to go red.
cant work off the red if green players can just throw themself at you leaving u the option of just dieing, killing them and getting more curruption or forcing them to run away potentialy dieing in the process. its a loose loose situation for the red player and no matter the outcome a win win for the green player since u can just run back and locate them again and go again and now there a bigger reward potential since there deeper in corruption potentialy causing more equipment to drop from them
Those are all consequences you know in advance, and something you should be weighing in to your decision making before you attack a green.
If they don't think it's worth defending enough to flag up, and you don't think it's worth the consequences, why did you choose to go red in the first place?
The issue isnt the consequences of kiling a green and going red initially the issue is what if you go red for what ever reason and then that 1 point of corruption can quickly snowball into 2 point then 3 point then 4 point and 5 point 6 point and so on just defending one self from green players attacking u afterwards is a death spiral basically u have 0 game play option to avoid it especialy when there BH that can track ur movement. When the only option you have is to let somone kill you its bad game design and thats what we currently have.
Now the other option is green players dont flag purple when they attack a red player however if a green player initiates an attack a red player they get a debuff on them where they remain green however if they are killed by the player who they attacked that player wont be given corruption since it was self defence.
So the only options here imo is
1 - green players are flagged as combatants wwhen hitting corrupted players
Or
2 - Green players who initiate an attack on a red player will not add corruption to the player if they are killed since it would be considered as self defence.
Otherwise people will game the system and grief players, i know i would send low level green players over and over again after reds if i was a bounty hunter with current set up simply so there easy to kill for red player and provide the most corruption penalty if they are killed hence rewarding me with more potential item drops off the corrupted player when i do choose to attack him since thats would provide the most reward and the only option the red player will have is to get widdled down and killed by the lowbie greens or to go deeper and deeper into corruption penalty.
it not a good game loop for bounty hunters or corrupted players so no corrupted players = no bounty hunter activity so realy your remove that whole aspect of the game
Corrupted players are, essentially, monsters just like other corrupted NPCs (this is why they can't interact with storage or crafting tables and are KOS to guards)
There's no reason for a green player to need to flag up to kill monsters.
What this does is loosen up the restrictions on red players a bit and discourages greens from turning around to kill reds just because a swarm of other players rolled by.
This is contrary to the goal of the system. That is exactly one of the restrictions that is intended for corrupted players.
If we use that logic, Monsters dont get weaker and drop more loot the more players they kill too your only looking at a single side of the coin there
Green attacking anyone should make them a combatant since they initiated it
Well if you’re flagged red you’ve already accepted that risk that you could be attacked or plan to attack someone. There’s no reason to initiate greens as combatants as they can only attack or respond to reds.
if the green attacks a red they saying right i accept pvp so should become combatant since at that stage they now opted into pvp which is what the whole flagging system is for.
Also whats the point of bounty hunter system if it now becomes safer to hunt reds as a green since if your bounty hunter you can be killed and not make the corruption worst and as a green player u kleave the red player the option to run away, die or make your curruption worst. You know whats gonna happen is there be 1 bounty hunter using the tracking ability to find red players and they just send green player friend to actually kil the red player while they stay back safely so he can never escape due to always being able to track them.
However if the green kills the red then surely the BH player won’t get any rewards. There is no point sending greens to do it as it won’t contribute to BH progression. Maybe they need a system as well where when you’re doing bounty hunting you can only invite other BH’s to your party as you would all be flagged the same for PvP. I honestly just prefer the lawless zone concept where everyone knows the risks and what they’re getting into.
In Albion Online you can flag for PvP as a red and attack normal players who can respond but it doesn’t also make them flagged hostile for defending themselves. The black zone which is kind of like the lawless zone you know what you’re getting into as it’s a PvP/PvX zone.
What I said the first time was correct about BH being purple as that’s flagged as a combatant but not corrupted. A green can attack a red and incur no change in status it’s exactly like Albion’s flagging system except corrupted are just Reds flagged as hostile for PvP. BH’s outside of the lawless zone would be classed as purple of which if they attack a green they become Red or corrupted. If a green attacks a purple they become a combatant so also Purple. The system is good very balanced however my first assumption of how it works is correct regardless of it’s a status or flagging system it still works the same way. I also don’t see greens as people who want to get into conflict in the first place that’s why they’re green but have the right to defend themselves from Reds or hostile players.
I see BH’s as more of a PvP progression system outside of lawless zones kind of like the PvP Progression or Battle Pass system in New World where you get XP based on PvP contribution. The thing that needs to be looked at is how is the BH system different to a standard PvP progression system assuming they’ll have a separate system for that too.
The system is there to stop reds carelessly attacking greens and griefing them without any consequences. The BH’s counter the hostile reds who would harass the green or average players. Anyways a true PvPer would just do wars, sieges or go to lawless zones there’s no fun in flagging red to bully greens. Again this is separate from the caravan system or PvX events in the open world as you’re initiating those plus know the risks. We don’t need to protect the reds!
Flagging red or becoming corrupted is probably just a good way to practice ganking but comes with consequence, however gankers will group up so it won’t be just one hostile red you’re facing if the game allows it there will be a party of them.
i see BH sending green to weaken a target then finish them off, BH will be incentivised to use greens with current system since if they kill the green BH get more reward to kill them since there now more corrupt, having green players in the fight also means the red target now has an enemy they cant attack and have to avoid while there fighting the BH at the same time if they do kill the green then the BH gets more reward so it a win win for them.
Not to mention with current set up green players are immune to CC effect so they have a further advantage in a fight especially when red players will also most likly be under the effect of stat dampening aswell.
If a green attacks anyone they should be purple no matter what by attacking they say yes im ok to PvP and when the flagging system in place to reduce involuntary pvp (killing somone who doesnt want to fight) by punishing that player by corrupting them then it not needed if the green player go o look ima attack you i opt into this pvp situation
If I see a whole bunch of greens coming towards me as a red that I anticipate I can’t beat I’m going reposition or move away from that area. That being said gankers are generally opportunists who will flag Red if they see the chance or potential in ganking you, and I highly doubt all Red players are going to be alone. Also why would a bunch of greens follow you around to help you kill reds if you’re the only one benefitting from the BH system, but I’m pretty sure they don’t have anything better to do or more efficient ways to spend their time.
Then there is also no fast travel so if I was a ganker plus I know BH is tied to military node I’d probably move somewhere further afield. There is also the option of making it so you have to do a percentage of the damage to the target to get the BH reward. I also hope Intrepid finds a way to limit or restrict multi-boxers or people abusing multiple accounts.
Lastly this is not a ganking game this is a PvP game where they’re trying to avoid griefing people it’s not supposed to be easy for a Red/Hostile player. If you want to PvP you have better dynamic PvP events like the caravan or other opt-in systems. There is also the lawless zone or naval combat on the open-seas you’d better off becoming a pirate 🏴☠️
The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path.
The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player.
If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away.
There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not.
Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk.
You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players.
If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple.
Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens.
It doesn't matter when the player turned red. They should know not to approach settlements until they've worked off that corruption.
And players coming to avenge their PK'd group mate is a risk you know every time you start combat, that you chose to go red doesn't change that the base play pattern is 'people come back for revenge'.
Reds don't need to be safeguarded, you need to weigh the risk first, not complain about the consequences after you already accepted to go red.
cant work off the red if green players can just throw themself at you leaving u the option of just dieing, killing them and getting more curruption or forcing them to run away potentialy dieing in the process. its a loose loose situation for the red player and no matter the outcome a win win for the green player since u can just run back and locate them again and go again and now there a bigger reward potential since there deeper in corruption potentialy causing more equipment to drop from them
Those are all consequences you know in advance, and something you should be weighing in to your decision making before you attack a green.
If they don't think it's worth defending enough to flag up, and you don't think it's worth the consequences, why did you choose to go red in the first place?
The issue isnt the consequences of kiling a green and going red initially the issue is what if you go red for what ever reason and then that 1 point of corruption can quickly snowball into 2 point then 3 point then 4 point and 5 point 6 point and so on just defending one self from green players attacking u afterwards is a death spiral basically u have 0 game play option to avoid it especialy when there BH that can track ur movement. When the only option you have is to let somone kill you its bad game design and thats what we currently have.
Now the other option is green players dont flag purple when they attack a red player however if a green player initiates an attack a red player they get a debuff on them where they remain green however if they are killed by the player who they attacked that player wont be given corruption since it was self defence.
It isn't 'self-defense'. It's 'protect my ill-gotten gains' from the consequences you accepted when you went red. You already decided it was worth it to you, but when the actual penalties come in, it's not nice enough to the Corrupted player? Yeah, right.
So the only options here imo is
1 - green players are flagged as combatants wwhen hitting corrupted players (defeats the purpose of the penalties)
Or
2 - Green players who initiate an attack on a red player will not add corruption to the player if they are killed since it would be considered as self defence. (defeats the purpose of the penalties)
It's not self-defense when you killed a non-combatant within shouting distance. Use your noggin and actually consider the area you're in before you start killing players that don't fight back. Framing self-made problems as systematic is bizarre. There also zero way to ever know who 'hit first', only if they've hit someone.
Otherwise people will game the system and grief players, i know i would send low level green players over and over again after reds if i was a bounty hunter with current set up simply so there easy to kill for red player and provide the most corruption penalty if they are killed hence rewarding me with more potential item drops off the corrupted player when i do choose to attack him since thats would provide the most reward and the only option the red player will have is to get widdled down and killed by the lowbie greens or to go deeper and deeper into corruption penalty.
it not a good game loop for bounty hunters or corrupted players so no corrupted players = no bounty hunter activity so realy your remove that whole aspect of the game
If a Corrupted player whined in chat about someone using the mechanics to get a gain over them and 'grief' them, I'd probably laugh in their (virtual) face. You are not ever forced to go red, it cannot be done on accident. The snowball starts and ends with you. If you made the foolish decision to PK without even a few guildies or friends around to watch your back while you work off the corruption, you caused your own problems if people take issue with that.
BHs are by definition the PvP-aligned players, something chronic non-combatants aren't into. This fantasy problem of a mob of greens coming at you for hours on end is an exercise in self-importance, and it would ultimately be a waste of their time if you hadn't robbed someone of a really valuable resource under high contention anyway (which, lol, that player would've fought you over to begin with because they didn't want you to have it in the first place)
There is zero difference between a red player that killed one person, and a red player who's killed fifty in a spree of mat-theft. Not a single way for players to tell one from another on-sight, and no mechanical way to tell either.
At what point does 'self-defense' stop being a viable crutch argument? Three kills? Five? Ten? Or is it the suggestion that even if a player is 100 PKs deep, it'll make someone flag purple just to kill them thus preventing them from being penalized for a spree of PKs? How would anyone know on sight if the game will call it 'self-defense' if you try to take out this murder-hobo, or if it'll treat them like a regular monster that's on a murder-hobo spree.
I'm perfectly fine with PKs, but this whole thread is some woe-is-solo-red mentality.
Players can be the last survivor of a group trying to use the green mechanic to escape. They can be a healer and holding resources in their inventory. The attacking group might also have only 1-2 remaining survivors.
And I see no reason to dismiss game mechanic improvements just because the arguments are analyzed with small number of participants.
This scenario doesn't even make sense. You're claiming in group v group combat that someone remained green the entire time? Healers flag up from healing their group mates in combat. You'd all be purple and thus not subject to concerns about Corruption
you gotta see that the flagging system in AoC wasn't based on good logic, it is just based on carebear spit against people who ganked them while they were cutting wood in other games, so don't expect great flagging system
This is a pretty standard flagging and penalty system that encourages fighting back over worthwhile areas while still allowing PK over the frivolous things.
Anyone that uses the term 'carebear' unironically usually proves themselves to be a much bigger one than whatever demographic they're crying foul over. Going red is a choice you have that comes with its own downsides and small perks, same as staying green which has.. well, no perks honestly.
Personally, I don't see how it's not just as much a plus for reds that non-combatants can't flag up on them. Either they wait out the corruption and eat no extra penalties and get no extra gains by not murder hobo'ing, or they can keep killing players that come after them and gain full value off those kills that they'd otherwise only be getting half of.
Blah blah, the flagging system is boring as your comment, a game can still have a flagging system and still be interesting for everybody but its the case i AoC. My problem with AoC is that things start looking very interesting but in the end things always fall short, the taste of everything starts well and ends up in a letdown
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
If a green turns purple just for attacking red, that’s a design problem. Players could easily bait greens into attacking a red, then ambush the greens (now purples) with a few purples backing up that red
Another issue is that the first person to attack gets a big edge, but if greens turn into purples after attacking, they’re gonna be way less likely to strike first, which takes away the advantage they should have over reds.
The flagging system is an Ouroboros lol
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
I made statements about what *I* would do. I didn't say what everyone would do. Who are you to tell me my statements about what I would do are untrue?
If I don't think I can't beat you, I'm giving you corruption. Swallow that poisoned pill. I might try to run if what I might lose is more valuable than the cost of punishing you.
Corrupted players are, essentially, monsters just like other corrupted NPCs (this is why they can't interact with storage or crafting tables and are KOS to guards)
There's no reason for a green player to need to flag up to kill monsters.
No, they are not monsters. They are maybe on the path of becoming monsters but they are not yet. Even Dygz would call fighting red players as a PvP activity rather than a PvE one because he sees the humanity in them.
Guards attack red players to protect cities from becoming a place where you get killed near a bank.
Storage is not accessible to prevent loopholes where the red can dump inventory before being killed by bounty hunters. Whatever NPCs we fight, if they have weapons it means they know the technology to create them and can open storage too if needed. Calling them monsters is a human way of labeling those who sided with The Others.
They fundamentally are, at least they are close enough that it matters until they purify it. That's why they can't trade or access storage and have other limitations. Corruption isn't just some arbitrary karma mechanic, but is a mechanic derived in lore.
They fundamentally are, at least they are close enough that it matters until they purify it. That's why they can't trade or access storage and have other limitations. Corruption isn't just some arbitrary karma mechanic, but is a mechanic derived in lore.
You said "There's no mind games at all in this interaction."
And we talk about the game design not how players can use it.
You can do what you want but others will not read your thoughts and guess your intentions.
you gotta see that the flagging system in AoC wasn't based on good logic, it is just based on carebear spit against people who ganked them while they were cutting wood in other games, so don't expect great flagging system
This is a pretty standard flagging and penalty system that encourages fighting back over worthwhile areas while still allowing PK over the frivolous things.
Anyone that uses the term 'carebear' unironically usually proves themselves to be a much bigger one than whatever demographic they're crying foul over. Going red is a choice you have that comes with its own downsides and small perks, same as staying green which has.. well, no perks honestly.
Personally, I don't see how it's not just as much a plus for reds that non-combatants can't flag up on them. Either they wait out the corruption and eat no extra penalties and get no extra gains by not murder hobo'ing, or they can keep killing players that come after them and gain full value off those kills that they'd otherwise only be getting half of.
Blah blah, the flagging system is boring as your comment, a game can still have a flagging system and still be interesting for everybody but its the case i AoC. My problem with AoC is that things start looking very interesting but in the end things always fall short, the taste of everything starts well and ends up in a letdown
I wasn't aware you took part in Alpha 1 and all the NDA testing to get such a thorough feel for the entire game experience
They fundamentally are, at least they are close enough that it matters until they purify it. That's why they can't trade or access storage and have other limitations. Corruption isn't just some arbitrary karma mechanic, but is a mechanic derived in lore.
You said "There's no mind games at all in this interaction."
And we talk about the game design not how players can use it.
You can do what you want but others will not read your thoughts and guess your intentions.
That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect.
Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time.
Comments
Those are all consequences you know in advance, and something you should be weighing in to your decision making before you attack a green.
If they don't think it's worth defending enough to flag up, and you don't think it's worth the consequences, why did you choose to go red in the first place?
The thing is the BH system is one of the key offerings of going a military node where economy nodes get auction houses, Science gets teleports, and Divine gets a vast open world dungeon. The progression of a bounty hunter needs to be a bit more meaningful than "you can see a red within 50 yards on the map" to "you can see red players within 150 yards on the map". I agree with the bounty hunter being a deterent, but they should be more than just that if they one of the key features of a military node.
Agreed however that’s where you have a rewards system for bounty hunting and PvP contributions. Exclusive rewards, contracts, reputation system, PvE bounties for monsters or NPC’s of another node, perks such as tax reduction or discounts on military equipment etc.
There are ways to also tie this into faction missions, node warfare, intelligence gathering or espionage, influence and leadership in the military node. There are a lot of ways to combine this into other or more dynamic systems in the game.
He thought the green was bluffing and will flag up right before dying to reduce the losses.
So what? They made a mistake, took a gamble they didn't need to take, and they now have consequences for their choices. That's reasonable.
Decide before you attack if it's worth going red. Playing mind games with yourself isn't gonna do you any good. If you want their stuff, commit to that PK. If you don't know they've got something worth taking, don't commit to the PK.
Makes me wonder if at this Point Bethesda even deserves new Players anymore ... ... ... hmmmmm.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Are you that fiercely against PKs, Caeryl?
I like the current corruption setup too ... but I'd hate to see white knighting of the current system at the risk of not being inclusive of other player feedback.
In Ashes of Creation, there will definitely be times where a PK will be worth it. As well as times where a green will fight back against a red and lose.
I'm perfectly fine with PKs, but this whole thread is some woe-is-solo-red mentality.
Player feedback has to be usable. 'I want to remove an entire facet of the flagging system because I can't ignore the consequence of PvP with greens after I inflicted PvP on a green' isn't usable feedback.
Just eat the consequences, they are not that bad. Dip out of the scene for a little while with your group of allies if you really don't want to fight any potential greens. Your group can heal you if greens try to attack, greens at double risk to their own drops since they can't flag up purple on you, and if they want to actually kill you they have to attack your purple-flagged healers first, which means you're free to wipe the floor with them.
PK done to benefit groups will probably be pretty common in fights over certain boss areas. Scouts would be prime PK targets as it takes eyes off what a rival guild is doing for as long as it takes them to run back to the dungeon/raid/etc.
Solo PKing, which is the only scenario the OP's fear could even be possible, isn't something that's worth making protective clauses for.
There's no reason for a green player to need to flag up to kill monsters.
This is contrary to the goal of the system. That is exactly one of the restrictions that is intended for corrupted players.
Pff nope. If I'm not fighting back instantly then I want you to suffer corruption and everything that comes with it. There's no mind games at all in this interaction.
In most cases the corruption penalties for you are way worse than whatever percent of mats I would lose while green comparaed to while purple.
I'd only fight back if I think I can win (and it's worth my effort) - not to save some percent of mats. Otherwise I'm happy to let you eat the corruption.
Players tend to have an incentive that other mobs don't in removing their corruption.
Not true.
If I have resources and I face one stronger player or 2 other players, I will attempt to run away.
The game mechanics which prevent CC on green were added after a crazy youtuber posted a video.
Now that they exist, I have a reason to try to flee.
When I am close to die I can turn and fight back to flag and lose fewer resources.
Sometime I might escape sometime I might die flagged.
The fact that the attackers don't see the full health bar can make them kill me before I manage to turn around, especially if some NPC interferes.
And this is a game mechanic which I see as fun and I see no reason to punish players because they dared to kill another player. This is not a pure PvE game and corruption is not supposed to be a place holder for that PvP on-off flag from New World.
Players need to kill each-other and Bounty Hunters must be a viable game-play mechanic.
This is part of the risk vs reward design pillar.
Guards attack red players to protect cities from becoming a place where you get killed near a bank.
Storage is not accessible to prevent loopholes where the red can dump inventory before being killed by bounty hunters. Whatever NPCs we fight, if they have weapons it means they know the technology to create them and can open storage too if needed. Calling them monsters is a human way of labeling those who sided with The Others.
Players can be the last survivor of a group trying to use the green mechanic to escape. They can be a healer and holding resources in their inventory. The attacking group might also have only 1-2 remaining survivors.
And I see no reason to dismiss game mechanic improvements just because the arguments are analyzed with small number of participants.
i see BH sending green to weaken a target then finish them off, BH will be incentivised to use greens with current system since if they kill the green BH get more reward to kill them since there now more corrupt, having green players in the fight also means the red target now has an enemy they cant attack and have to avoid while there fighting the BH at the same time if they do kill the green then the BH gets more reward so it a win win for them.
Not to mention with current set up green players are immune to CC effect so they have a further advantage in a fight especially when red players will also most likly be under the effect of stat dampening aswell.
If a green attacks anyone they should be purple no matter what by attacking they say yes im ok to PvP and when the flagging system in place to reduce involuntary pvp (killing somone who doesnt want to fight) by punishing that player by corrupting them then it not needed if the green player go o look ima attack you i opt into this pvp situation
The issue isnt the consequences of kiling a green and going red initially the issue is what if you go red for what ever reason and then that 1 point of corruption can quickly snowball into 2 point then 3 point then 4 point and 5 point 6 point and so on just defending one self from green players attacking u afterwards is a death spiral basically u have 0 game play option to avoid it especialy when there BH that can track ur movement. When the only option you have is to let somone kill you its bad game design and thats what we currently have.
Now the other option is green players dont flag purple when they attack a red player however if a green player initiates an attack a red player they get a debuff on them where they remain green however if they are killed by the player who they attacked that player wont be given corruption since it was self defence.
So the only options here imo is
1 - green players are flagged as combatants wwhen hitting corrupted players
Or
2 - Green players who initiate an attack on a red player will not add corruption to the player if they are killed since it would be considered as self defence.
Otherwise people will game the system and grief players, i know i would send low level green players over and over again after reds if i was a bounty hunter with current set up simply so there easy to kill for red player and provide the most corruption penalty if they are killed hence rewarding me with more potential item drops off the corrupted player when i do choose to attack him since thats would provide the most reward and the only option the red player will have is to get widdled down and killed by the lowbie greens or to go deeper and deeper into corruption penalty.
it not a good game loop for bounty hunters or corrupted players so no corrupted players = no bounty hunter activity so realy your remove that whole aspect of the game
If we use that logic, Monsters dont get weaker and drop more loot the more players they kill too your only looking at a single side of the coin there
If I see a whole bunch of greens coming towards me as a red that I anticipate I can’t beat I’m going reposition or move away from that area. That being said gankers are generally opportunists who will flag Red if they see the chance or potential in ganking you, and I highly doubt all Red players are going to be alone. Also why would a bunch of greens follow you around to help you kill reds if you’re the only one benefitting from the BH system, but I’m pretty sure they don’t have anything better to do or more efficient ways to spend their time.
Then there is also no fast travel so if I was a ganker plus I know BH is tied to military node I’d probably move somewhere further afield. There is also the option of making it so you have to do a percentage of the damage to the target to get the BH reward. I also hope Intrepid finds a way to limit or restrict multi-boxers or people abusing multiple accounts.
Lastly this is not a ganking game this is a PvP game where they’re trying to avoid griefing people it’s not supposed to be easy for a Red/Hostile player. If you want to PvP you have better dynamic PvP events like the caravan or other opt-in systems. There is also the lawless zone or naval combat on the open-seas you’d better off becoming a pirate 🏴☠️
It isn't 'self-defense'. It's 'protect my ill-gotten gains' from the consequences you accepted when you went red. You already decided it was worth it to you, but when the actual penalties come in, it's not nice enough to the Corrupted player? Yeah, right.
It's not self-defense when you killed a non-combatant within shouting distance. Use your noggin and actually consider the area you're in before you start killing players that don't fight back. Framing self-made problems as systematic is bizarre. There also zero way to ever know who 'hit first', only if they've hit someone.
If a Corrupted player whined in chat about someone using the mechanics to get a gain over them and 'grief' them, I'd probably laugh in their (virtual) face. You are not ever forced to go red, it cannot be done on accident. The snowball starts and ends with you. If you made the foolish decision to PK without even a few guildies or friends around to watch your back while you work off the corruption, you caused your own problems if people take issue with that.
BHs are by definition the PvP-aligned players, something chronic non-combatants aren't into. This fantasy problem of a mob of greens coming at you for hours on end is an exercise in self-importance, and it would ultimately be a waste of their time if you hadn't robbed someone of a really valuable resource under high contention anyway (which, lol, that player would've fought you over to begin with because they didn't want you to have it in the first place)
There is zero difference between a red player that killed one person, and a red player who's killed fifty in a spree of mat-theft. Not a single way for players to tell one from another on-sight, and no mechanical way to tell either.
At what point does 'self-defense' stop being a viable crutch argument? Three kills? Five? Ten? Or is it the suggestion that even if a player is 100 PKs deep, it'll make someone flag purple just to kill them thus preventing them from being penalized for a spree of PKs? How would anyone know on sight if the game will call it 'self-defense' if you try to take out this murder-hobo, or if it'll treat them like a regular monster that's on a murder-hobo spree.
This scenario doesn't even make sense. You're claiming in group v group combat that someone remained green the entire time? Healers flag up from healing their group mates in combat. You'd all be purple and thus not subject to concerns about Corruption
Blah blah, the flagging system is boring as your comment, a game can still have a flagging system and still be interesting for everybody but its the case i AoC. My problem with AoC is that things start looking very interesting but in the end things always fall short, the taste of everything starts well and ends up in a letdown
Another issue is that the first person to attack gets a big edge, but if greens turn into purples after attacking, they’re gonna be way less likely to strike first, which takes away the advantage they should have over reds.
The flagging system is an Ouroboros lol
I made statements about what *I* would do. I didn't say what everyone would do. Who are you to tell me my statements about what I would do are untrue?
If I don't think I can't beat you, I'm giving you corruption. Swallow that poisoned pill. I might try to run if what I might lose is more valuable than the cost of punishing you.
I think he means they are basically mobs xD
They fundamentally are, at least they are close enough that it matters until they purify it. That's why they can't trade or access storage and have other limitations. Corruption isn't just some arbitrary karma mechanic, but is a mechanic derived in lore.
You said "There's no mind games at all in this interaction."
And we talk about the game design not how players can use it.
You can do what you want but others will not read your thoughts and guess your intentions.
I wasn't aware you took part in Alpha 1 and all the NDA testing to get such a thorough feel for the entire game experience
That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect.
Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time.