I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone.
It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place.
That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it.
There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas.
As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back.
So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat.
What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing?
That’s not normal PK’ing though as normal PK’ing is knowing the risk such as in a lawless zone I’ve accepted the risk. The risk being it’s a PvP zone so I know anyone who’s not in my guild, group or alliance could be a threat. At that point I’ve accepted the fact I could be ganked or even end up fighting over resources.
However a green who is neither in a lawless PvP zone or flagged for combat who probably doesn’t want to fight doesn’t necessarily know or accept the risk of being PK’d. What you’re doing at that point is getting upset over resources in a non-PvP zone or trying to force them out of a farming area which is griefing.
A caravan system is the same thing as a PvP zone you know the risk that there’s an opt-in PvP system and PK’ing system for caravans. If you’re silly enough to transport knowing you can be attacked by people opting into being a combatant or potentially stealing your goods, and you don’t take precautions or get friends to help you transport or plan a safe route that’s at your own risk.
If you can be attacked by someone, you're in a PvP enabled zone... You are knowingly going into a zone where you know anyone can kill you...its normal PKing. The only difference is that it can give corruption to the attacker. Someone who PKs, isn't a griefer. A Griefer PKs for the sake of negatively impacting other players gameplay. A normal PKer PK's for personal advancement within the game.
I'll put this here yet again
"The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[17] – Steven Sharif"
"When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif"
I feel like you’re trying to twist those words in your favour and you’re the one who doesn’t understand. Personally I have no reason to attack another green player outside of designated PvP Mechanics, Caravans, Events or Zones intended for fair PvP where we both understand the risk involved. It doesn’t give me personal advancement to get a small amount of mats that are low tier from someone outside of a lawless zone when the rewards there are supposed to be far better. Also if I lose a fight to someone fairly group vs group or 1v1 then I’m just bad so it’s my own fault for going into those zones in the first place.
I also don’t like the idea of pushing people out for farming spots or zones because you can’t share a farming spot or wait for them to respawn. If it was a lawless zone fair enough go ham gank or PK them but if it’s just some green gathering some average materials in the forest near my node I’m not going to get mad then kill him because he took some virtual resources some pixels.
However if you attack me first as a green which you shouldn’t as you can’t even CC me or put certain status buffs on me. Then when I clap you and you lose you should feel bad hopefully losing more than me. As I said again that’s not normal PK’ing to go hostile attacking randoms greens without consent that are just going about their normal PvE/Gathering activities outside of riskier designated zones.
I’ve got nothing more to say on this it’s like I’m talking to a wall or shouting into a dark cavern Echo… Echo… Echo chamber! We will see when the game comes out I honestly can’t tell you if anything will change or not. However the current system makes sense to me and if it’s not the way I understand it then it’s just going to be one big PvP server which doesn’t bother me I love it. The corruption systems there for the benefit of the non-PvP players or people that prefer to do PvE/Gathering without some risks.
I’m more pro-PvP than PvE which is why I’m always mentioning PvX. However there is different types of players in this game, and different people that make up the community that’s what you’ve got to understand. It is like they’re literally giving you a place or systems or events to go to PvP, PK players and not have corruption consequences. Then it’s like you’re saying no I don’t want that I just want to kill greens whenever I feel like it because they made me angry and took my farming spot.
I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone.
It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place.
That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it.
There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas.
As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back.
So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat.
What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing?
That’s not normal PK’ing though as normal PK’ing is knowing the risk such as in a lawless zone I’ve accepted the risk. The risk being it’s a PvP zone so I know anyone who’s not in my guild, group or alliance could be a threat. At that point I’ve accepted the fact I could be ganked or even end up fighting over resources.
However a green who is neither in a lawless PvP zone or flagged for combat who probably doesn’t want to fight doesn’t necessarily know or accept the risk of being PK’d. What you’re doing at that point is getting upset over resources in a non-PvP zone or trying to force them out of a farming area which is griefing.
A caravan system is the same thing as a PvP zone you know the risk that there’s an opt-in PvP system and PK’ing system for caravans. If you’re silly enough to transport knowing you can be attacked by people opting into being a combatant or potentially stealing your goods, and you don’t take precautions or get friends to help you transport or plan a safe route that’s at your own risk.
If you can be attacked by someone, you're in a PvP enabled zone... You are knowingly going into a zone where you know anyone can kill you...its normal PKing. The only difference is that it can give corruption to the attacker. Someone who PKs, isn't a griefer. A Griefer PKs for the sake of negatively impacting other players gameplay. A normal PKer PK's for personal advancement within the game.
I'll put this here yet again
"The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[17] – Steven Sharif"
"When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif"
I feel like you’re trying to twist those words in your favour and you’re the one who doesn’t understand. Personally I have no reason to attack another green player outside of designated PvP Mechanics, Caravans, Events or Zones intended for fair PvP where we both understand the risk involved. It doesn’t give me personal advancement to get a small amount of mats that are low tier from someone outside of a lawless zone when the rewards there are supposed to be far better. Also if I lose a fight to someone fairly group vs group or 1v1 then I’m just bad so it’s my own fault for going into those zones in the first place.
I also don’t like the idea of pushing people out for farming spots or zones because you can’t share a farming spot or wait for them to respawn. If it was a lawless zone fair enough go ham gank or PK them but if it’s just some green gathering some average materials in the forest near my node I’m not going to get mad then kill him because he took some virtual resources some pixels.
However if you attack me first as a green which you shouldn’t as you can’t even CC me or put certain status buffs on me. Then when I clap you and you lose you should feel bad hopefully losing more than me. As I said again that’s not normal PK’ing to go hostile attacking randoms greens without consent that are just going about their normal PvE/Gathering activities outside of riskier designated zones.
I’ve got nothing more to say on this it’s like I’m talking to a wall or shouting into a dark cavern Echo… Echo… Echo chamber! We will see when the game comes out I honestly can’t tell you if anything will change or not. However the current system makes sense to me and if it’s not the way I understand it then it’s just going to be one big PvP server which doesn’t bother me I love it. The corruption systems there for the benefit of the non-PvP players or people that prefer to do PvE/Gathering without some risks.
I’m more pro-PvP than PvE which is why I’m always mentioning PvX. However there is different types of players in this game, and different people that make up the community that’s what you’ve got to understand. It is like they’re literally giving you a place or systems or events to go to PvP, PK players and not have corruption consequences. Then it’s like you’re saying no I don’t want that I just want to kill greens whenever I feel like it because they made me angry and took my farming spot.
Consent has nothing to do with it. As soon as you log into ashes you consent to any PvP that can happen to you.
I posted Stevens own words and you think I am twisting them somehow... You just cant accept the fact that limited PKing is intended gameplay, but griefing is not. If it wasn't, it wouldn't even be allowed, nor would there be systems like bounty hunting that literally rely upon a corrupted player population within the game.
Back to the main point, Corruption PKs should indeed have consequences. But those consequences shouldnt immediately equate to the same consequences intended for true griefing. It would be more in line with Stevens own design if it were made into a system where unreasonable amounts of PKing in a small timeframe result in severe punishment to deter griefing. Not immediate severe punishment to a few PKs in a large timeframe, which would deter PvP as a whole.
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.
I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game.
I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him.
They engage into PvP, they act as Bounty Hunters but they also stay green and have advantage over those BH. They should have no advantage at all. If they PvP then they are PvP-ers not non-combatants.
There must be a way to distinguish between these two cases because it is unfair competition with the BH system.
"Corrupted players may kill bounty hunters without acquiring additional corruption score.[8][9]
Corrupted player's combat penalties do not apply when battling bounty hunters.[8]"
Even if the greens become purple, the Red still have the combat penalties.
This Bounty Hunters concept feels like it was added later, after the flagging system was established. Or as if there are two separate systems inspired by different games and were not properly integrated together.
Vengeance would imply someone who would've fought back in the initial engagement, which would mean no corruption...unless they are utilizing excessive corruption penalties as an advantage like I stated earlier
If a player who's about to become Red is not ready to die as a Red - he was not ready to be Red. That's it.
If you're afraid that others can now freely kill you because you're Red and you DON'T want to die to them - you weren't prepared to be Red.
If you became Red over some daisies that a Green player was gathering, but now you complain that others can freely kill you - those daisies weren't worth becoming Red over and/or you're a weakling who couldn't contest a location better.
In other words, all the Reds complaining that they can be killed by a mob of people w/o being able to defend themselves are just weaklings who won't survive the game Git gud bois
If a player who's about to become Red is not ready to die as a Red - he was not ready to be Red. That's it.
If you're afraid that others can now freely kill you because you're Red and you DON'T want to die to them - you weren't prepared to be Red.
If you became Red over some daisies that a Green player was gathering, but now you complain that others can freely kill you - those daisies weren't worth becoming Red over and/or you're a weakling who couldn't contest a location better.
In other words, all the Reds complaining that they can be killed by a mob w/o being able to defend themselves are just weaklings who won't survive the game Git gud bois
Griefers are the only ones who should be truly punished. So not all reds as it currently is designed are the same.
Griefers are the only ones who should be truly punished. So not all reds as it currently is designed are the same.
And I've always said, I want the first 3-4 PKs to be clearable relatively quickly. But as long as you're Red - you're a free pinata to anyone around you at 0 cost, so you better be truly prepared to become that pinata.
I have an idea why don’t we just make the whole map a lawless zone? Hear me out this would solve all problems and we can all have one massive battle royale and I also think we should make it full loot
Griefers are the only ones who should be truly punished. So not all reds as it currently is designed are the same.
And I've always said, I want the first 3-4 PKs to be clearable relatively quickly. But as long as you're Red - you're a free pinata to anyone around you at 0 cost, so you better be truly prepared to become that pinata.
You and I have had good discussions in the past so I ask.
Why would you not want severity of punishment to correlate with the amount of corruption?
And why is it better to apply the maximum punishment across all levels of corruption and only affecting how quickly one can become uncorrupted?
I think we have already discussed with eachother our views on defending oneself as a corrupted player against greens and the resulting additional corruption for it.
And why is it better to apply the maximum punishment across all levels of corruption and only affecting how quickly one can become uncorrupted?
I perefer it being the binary way, cause it's way easier to explain and, imo, seems more logical as well. If you're Red - your penalties are obvious. And you remain Red even if you have a single point of corruption.
I think we have already discussed with eachother our views on defending oneself as a corrupted player against greens and the resulting additional corruption for it.
Once you step onto the downward spiral - the only way to come off is to either grind or die. If you weren't ready to grind it off - you better be prepared to die
And why is it better to apply the maximum punishment across all levels of corruption and only affecting how quickly one can become uncorrupted?
I perefer it being the binary way, cause it's way easier to explain and, imo, seems more logical as well. If you're Red - your penalties are obvious. And you remain Red even if you have a single point of corruption.
I think we have already discussed with eachother our views on defending oneself as a corrupted player against greens and the resulting additional corruption for it.
Once you step onto the downward spiral - the only way to come off is to either grind or die. If you weren't ready to grind it off - you better be prepared to die
I am asking for some objective reasoning. Not "Because I like it that way"
And red is simply an indicator. We even saw the corruption debuff itself has a number on it, showing there are levels.
I have an idea why don’t we just make the whole map a lawless zone? Hear me out this would solve all problems and we can all have one massive battle royale and I also think we should make it full loot
Hell yeah, lets go!
It’s just a pipe dream! In all fairness we need the gathering and PvE community. Who is going to sell me mats, craft items and do all the economy activities. We even need the role players who’s going to open a tavern?
From a PvP/PvX players perspective we need them even if they are loot piñatas they’re good for the game! Plus they sub which is more money for intrepid which means hopefully more expansions!
Objectively speaking, the simpler the red state (e.g. you’re red for killing x number of greens in y period of time) the easier it is for greens and purples to justify hunting and killing the red. The more players killing reds, the less desired it is to be red, which will decrease overall griefing of greens.
Objectively speaking, the simpler the red state the easier it is for greens and purples to justify hunting and killing the red. The more players killing reds, the less desired it is to be red, which will decrease overall griefing of greens.
And in that oversimplified system, you also deter engagement of PvP as a whole. Others and myself included will utilize corruption as a shield if corruption is too punishing immediately. Anytime someone engages me I let them kill me and then i use my bounty hunter alt or friends to hunt them down ASAP and get everything and more back, and if they fight back, it gets even worse for them if they kill me again.
And red is simply an indicator. We even saw the corruption debuff itself has a number on it, showing there are levels.
Right now I think those numbers simply indicate how many kills you've got, so it's easier for the person to know how much corruption they have.
Considering they've said nothing about penalty severness steps I doubt that number indicates that kind of mechanic.
Severeness is indicated by how much corruption you have. The very existence of an indication of "how corrupted" someone is shows the system isnt binary and as simple as "just being red"
Objectively speaking, the simpler the red state the easier it is for greens and purples to justify hunting and killing the red. The more players killing reds, the less desired it is to be red, which will decrease overall griefing of greens.
And in that oversimplified system, you also deter engagement of PvP as a whole. Others and myself included will utilize corruption as a shield if corruption is too punishing immediately. Anytime someone engages me I let them kill me and then i use my bounty hunter alt or friends to hunt them down ASAP and get everything and more back, and if they fight back, it gets even worse for them if they kill me again.
Again, them killing you may result is gaining corruption but not turning red. This is something I really want to test when we get there…
So you just may die & drop 100%. If you somehow knew they would turn red, it may change the interaction.
@Ludullu also, even if the system were truly binary. Why is that better? Just for simplicity? Why is simplicity better in this situation when this game has already shown plenty of complexity?
Objectively speaking, the simpler the red state the easier it is for greens and purples to justify hunting and killing the red. The more players killing reds, the less desired it is to be red, which will decrease overall griefing of greens.
And in that oversimplified system, you also deter engagement of PvP as a whole. Others and myself included will utilize corruption as a shield if corruption is too punishing immediately. Anytime someone engages me I let them kill me and then i use my bounty hunter alt or friends to hunt them down ASAP and get everything and more back, and if they fight back, it gets even worse for them if they kill me again.
Again, them killing you may result is gaining corruption but not turning red. This is something I really want to test when we get there…
So you just may die & drop 100%. If you somehow knew they would turn red, it may change the interaction.
Oh is this in reference to that ranger showcase? Where it looked like there is a sort of buffer kill?
Objectively speaking, the simpler the red state the easier it is for greens and purples to justify hunting and killing the red. The more players killing reds, the less desired it is to be red, which will decrease overall griefing of greens.
And in that oversimplified system, you also deter engagement of PvP as a whole. Others and myself included will utilize corruption as a shield if corruption is too punishing immediately. Anytime someone engages me I let them kill me and then i use my bounty hunter alt or friends to hunt them down ASAP and get everything and more back, and if they fight back, it gets even worse for them if they kill me again.
Again, them killing you may result is gaining corruption but not turning red. This is something I really want to test when we get there…
So you just may die & drop 100%. If you somehow knew they would turn red, it may change the interaction.
Oh is this in reference to that ranger showcase? Where it looked like there is a sort of buffer kill?
if there is a buffer for killing similar level players that is basically all i could ask for. My understanding over these years for corruption is that one iota of it gives the full flag and death effects, but not as much as someone with more corruption.
Severeness is indicated by how much corruption you have. The very existence of an indication of "how corrupted" someone is shows the system isnt binary and as simple as "just being red"
I should've been clearer, cause I was talking about the death penalties there.
Yes, the direct corruption penalties do scale, but even then I think the indicator would be showing the "pk count" steps, cause those determine how much corruption you get for kills.
And if the indicator IS showing severeness of those penalties, then I find it weird that it has never been mentioned. Though, of course, it could just be randomly added and the convo never came up. We'll have to see in A2.
Ludullu also, even if the system were truly binary. Why is that better? Just for simplicity? Why is simplicity better in this situation when this game has already shown plenty of complexity?
Imo, yes, simpler systems (or at least parts of them) are more palatable by people and are easier to play with. There's still complexities related to the corruption system (sandal knows we've discussed those at length countless times), but the player state is fairly straightforward: green = default, purple = involved with an attack on a non-red, red = has murdered a green.
And death penalties are related to that straightforwardness: default, lessened ones for combatants, huge ones for murderers.
And even that system has been complained about, cause people couldn't understand it. And yes, I guess changing it to "attack anyone and you're purple" would make it even simpler, but that would also drastically change the risk/reward equation of the game. And I've talked about that in the past, so I won't go into it again.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot.
I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced entirely as a result.
It'll deter solo PKers and ones that feel the need to be babied when they make an error and PK around other non-combatants.
it will deter group PKers just as much. Pushing away a single player with a PK will doom both solo PKers and groups alike. And to even fight back to save that player in your party getting PKed is foolish since youll get to kill a bunch of corrupted players and get more loot
I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone.
It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place.
That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it.
There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas.
As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back.
So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat.
What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing?
That’s not normal PK’ing though as normal PK’ing is knowing the risk such as in a lawless zone I’ve accepted the risk. The risk being it’s a PvP zone so I know anyone who’s not in my guild, group or alliance could be a threat. At that point I’ve accepted the fact I could be ganked or even end up fighting over resources.
However a green who is neither in a lawless PvP zone or flagged for combat who probably doesn’t want to fight doesn’t necessarily know or accept the risk of being PK’d. What you’re doing at that point is getting upset over resources in a non-PvP zone or trying to force them out of a farming area which is griefing.
A caravan system is the same thing as a PvP zone you know the risk that there’s an opt-in PvP system and PK’ing system for caravans. If you’re silly enough to transport knowing you can be attacked by people opting into being a combatant or potentially stealing your goods, and you don’t take precautions or get friends to help you transport or plan a safe route that’s at your own risk.
If you can be attacked by someone, you're in a PvP enabled zone... You are knowingly going into a zone where you know anyone can kill you...its normal PKing. The only difference is that it can give corruption to the attacker. Someone who PKs, isn't a griefer. A Griefer PKs for the sake of negatively impacting other players gameplay. A normal PKer PK's for personal advancement within the game.
I'll put this here yet again
"The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[17] – Steven Sharif"
"When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif"
I feel like you’re trying to twist those words in your favour and you’re the one who doesn’t understand. Personally I have no reason to attack another green player outside of designated PvP Mechanics, Caravans, Events or Zones intended for fair PvP where we both understand the risk involved. It doesn’t give me personal advancement to get a small amount of mats that are low tier from someone outside of a lawless zone when the rewards there are supposed to be far better. Also if I lose a fight to someone fairly group vs group or 1v1 then I’m just bad so it’s my own fault for going into those zones in the first place.
I also don’t like the idea of pushing people out for farming spots or zones because you can’t share a farming spot or wait for them to respawn. If it was a lawless zone fair enough go ham gank or PK them but if it’s just some green gathering some average materials in the forest near my node I’m not going to get mad then kill him because he took some virtual resources some pixels.
gotta fire those warning shots (:
trust me, u will end up pushing players outside of their farming zone, whether you like it or not. or you will pvp
Griefers are the only ones who should be truly punished. So not all reds as it currently is designed are the same.
And I've always said, I want the first 3-4 PKs to be clearable relatively quickly. But as long as you're Red - you're a free pinata to anyone around you at 0 cost, so you better be truly prepared to become that pinata.
I prefer the red state to stay for a longer time. No camping a farming spot and cleaning the red status in the same place.
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.
I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game.
I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him.
There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios.
Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions.
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.
I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game.
I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him.
There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios.
Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions.
Player action is that they engage in combat.
They PvP.
It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked.
Comments
I feel like you’re trying to twist those words in your favour and you’re the one who doesn’t understand. Personally I have no reason to attack another green player outside of designated PvP Mechanics, Caravans, Events or Zones intended for fair PvP where we both understand the risk involved. It doesn’t give me personal advancement to get a small amount of mats that are low tier from someone outside of a lawless zone when the rewards there are supposed to be far better. Also if I lose a fight to someone fairly group vs group or 1v1 then I’m just bad so it’s my own fault for going into those zones in the first place.
I also don’t like the idea of pushing people out for farming spots or zones because you can’t share a farming spot or wait for them to respawn. If it was a lawless zone fair enough go ham gank or PK them but if it’s just some green gathering some average materials in the forest near my node I’m not going to get mad then kill him because he took some virtual resources some pixels.
However if you attack me first as a green which you shouldn’t as you can’t even CC me or put certain status buffs on me. Then when I clap you and you lose you should feel bad hopefully losing more than me. As I said again that’s not normal PK’ing to go hostile attacking randoms greens without consent that are just going about their normal PvE/Gathering activities outside of riskier designated zones.
I’ve got nothing more to say on this it’s like I’m talking to a wall or shouting into a dark cavern Echo… Echo… Echo chamber! We will see when the game comes out I honestly can’t tell you if anything will change or not. However the current system makes sense to me and if it’s not the way I understand it then it’s just going to be one big PvP server which doesn’t bother me I love it. The corruption systems there for the benefit of the non-PvP players or people that prefer to do PvE/Gathering without some risks.
I’m more pro-PvP than PvE which is why I’m always mentioning PvX. However there is different types of players in this game, and different people that make up the community that’s what you’ve got to understand. It is like they’re literally giving you a place or systems or events to go to PvP, PK players and not have corruption consequences. Then it’s like you’re saying no I don’t want that I just want to kill greens whenever I feel like it because they made me angry and took my farming spot.
Consent has nothing to do with it. As soon as you log into ashes you consent to any PvP that can happen to you.
I posted Stevens own words and you think I am twisting them somehow... You just cant accept the fact that limited PKing is intended gameplay, but griefing is not. If it wasn't, it wouldn't even be allowed, nor would there be systems like bounty hunting that literally rely upon a corrupted player population within the game.
Back to the main point, Corruption PKs should indeed have consequences. But those consequences shouldnt immediately equate to the same consequences intended for true griefing. It would be more in line with Stevens own design if it were made into a system where unreasonable amounts of PKing in a small timeframe result in severe punishment to deter griefing. Not immediate severe punishment to a few PKs in a large timeframe, which would deter PvP as a whole.
RED means you did WRONG.
And vengeance is coming.
I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game.
I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him.
They engage into PvP, they act as Bounty Hunters but they also stay green and have advantage over those BH. They should have no advantage at all. If they PvP then they are PvP-ers not non-combatants.
There must be a way to distinguish between these two cases because it is unfair competition with the BH system.
"Corrupted players may kill bounty hunters without acquiring additional corruption score.[8][9]
Corrupted player's combat penalties do not apply when battling bounty hunters.[8]"
Even if the greens become purple, the Red still have the combat penalties.
This Bounty Hunters concept feels like it was added later, after the flagging system was established. Or as if there are two separate systems inspired by different games and were not properly integrated together.
Vengeance would imply someone who would've fought back in the initial engagement, which would mean no corruption...unless they are utilizing excessive corruption penalties as an advantage like I stated earlier
If you're afraid that others can now freely kill you because you're Red and you DON'T want to die to them - you weren't prepared to be Red.
If you became Red over some daisies that a Green player was gathering, but now you complain that others can freely kill you - those daisies weren't worth becoming Red over and/or you're a weakling who couldn't contest a location better.
In other words, all the Reds complaining that they can be killed by a mob of people w/o being able to defend themselves are just weaklings who won't survive the game
Agreed, @Ludullu
Griefers are the only ones who should be truly punished. So not all reds as it currently is designed are the same.
Hell yeah, lets go!
You and I have had good discussions in the past so I ask.
Why would you not want severity of punishment to correlate with the amount of corruption?
And why is it better to apply the maximum punishment across all levels of corruption and only affecting how quickly one can become uncorrupted?
I think we have already discussed with eachother our views on defending oneself as a corrupted player against greens and the resulting additional corruption for it.
I perefer it being the binary way, cause it's way easier to explain and, imo, seems more logical as well. If you're Red - your penalties are obvious. And you remain Red even if you have a single point of corruption.
Once you step onto the downward spiral - the only way to come off is to either grind or die. If you weren't ready to grind it off - you better be prepared to die
I am asking for some objective reasoning. Not "Because I like it that way"
And red is simply an indicator. We even saw the corruption debuff itself has a number on it, showing there are levels.
It’s just a pipe dream! In all fairness we need the gathering and PvE community. Who is going to sell me mats, craft items and do all the economy activities. We even need the role players who’s going to open a tavern?
From a PvP/PvX players perspective we need them even if they are loot piñatas they’re good for the game! Plus they sub which is more money for intrepid which means hopefully more expansions!
Right now I think those numbers simply indicate how many kills you've got, so it's easier for the person to know how much corruption they have.
Considering they've said nothing about penalty severness steps I doubt that number indicates that kind of mechanic.
And in that oversimplified system, you also deter engagement of PvP as a whole. Others and myself included will utilize corruption as a shield if corruption is too punishing immediately. Anytime someone engages me I let them kill me and then i use my bounty hunter alt or friends to hunt them down ASAP and get everything and more back, and if they fight back, it gets even worse for them if they kill me again.
Severeness is indicated by how much corruption you have. The very existence of an indication of "how corrupted" someone is shows the system isnt binary and as simple as "just being red"
but the punishment is not binary. thats part of the issue.
Again, them killing you may result is gaining corruption but not turning red. This is something I really want to test when we get there…
So you just may die & drop 100%. If you somehow knew they would turn red, it may change the interaction.
Oh is this in reference to that ranger showcase? Where it looked like there is a sort of buffer kill?
if there is a buffer for killing similar level players that is basically all i could ask for. My understanding over these years for corruption is that one iota of it gives the full flag and death effects, but not as much as someone with more corruption.
Yes, the direct corruption penalties do scale, but even then I think the indicator would be showing the "pk count" steps, cause those determine how much corruption you get for kills.
And if the indicator IS showing severeness of those penalties, then I find it weird that it has never been mentioned. Though, of course, it could just be randomly added and the convo never came up. We'll have to see in A2.
I was talking about the death penalties there and unless I completely missed it - those are purely binary when it comes to "are you red or not".
Imo, yes, simpler systems (or at least parts of them) are more palatable by people and are easier to play with. There's still complexities related to the corruption system (sandal knows we've discussed those at length countless times), but the player state is fairly straightforward: green = default, purple = involved with an attack on a non-red, red = has murdered a green.
And death penalties are related to that straightforwardness: default, lessened ones for combatants, huge ones for murderers.
And even that system has been complained about, cause people couldn't understand it. And yes, I guess changing it to "attack anyone and you're purple" would make it even simpler, but that would also drastically change the risk/reward equation of the game. And I've talked about that in the past, so I won't go into it again.
u gotta l2 more xd
gotta fire those warning shots (:
trust me, u will end up pushing players outside of their farming zone, whether you like it or not. or you will pvp
I prefer the red state to stay for a longer time. No camping a farming spot and cleaning the red status in the same place.
Yeah lmfao. Dude is hopeless to talk to
There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios.
Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions.
Player action is that they engage in combat.
They PvP.
It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked.