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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
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.
It could still remain simple seeing as there are technically 4 flagged states. Bounty hunters flag to corrupted players and dont cause more corruption when killed, but remain as non-combatants to non-corrupt players. It would be as simple as applying this to noncombatants who attack corrupted players initially to avoid the whole snowballing corruption debacle. You would still get you flat rate corrupted penalties, but youd also be not punishing players who arent actually griefing with a black hole of kills they never intended to commit because of defending themselves. It still even maintains the entire concept of keeping non-combatants who dont want to engage in combat under the protection of causing corruption. Seems like a simple fix. Hows that for maintaining simplicity?
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there?
Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight.
The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there?
Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight.
The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing.
Your problems all vanish if you play in a group. Even solo PKing works if you're smart and pick your battles wisely with an evasion plan in mind.
It only escalates when you do something stupid like PK solo in the face of a group.
Still going to sacrifice a non-combatant for the edge with how corruption is currently. Even if we die as a group of non-combatants, I and others will have bounty hunter alts to take advantage of the system and immediately hunt our assailants down for the exponential rewards of killing our corrupted killers.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there?
Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight.
The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing.
Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP.
We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds.
PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone.
You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify, much less codify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game.
There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok'
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there?
Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight.
The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing.
Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP.
We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds.
PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone.
You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game.
There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok'
Thats your opinion, and holds no objectivity. We go by Stevens provided definition for griefing, which comes down to intent behind the PK. Killing you once for some resources and then leaving you alone is no worse than killing you for any zone control/content. Its only bad when I am intentionally trying to ruin your gameplay experience.
For one, you dont know what payouts will be better or not, nor if the risks are greater or less. Largescale PvP events are much different than 1v1 or 8v8. They tend to require much more planning and arent necessarily spontaneous.
PKing absolutely can be a high gains playstyle if it comes to resource control. Otherwise youll have nothing to worry about as there would be no point to fight for said resources. And while there is no corruption for Caravan PvP, there are still some death penalties. Including gear degradation and material drops.
And like I said several times already, it comes down to punishing griefing rather than punishing PvP. If people are actively fighting against eachother, thats PvP regardless of anyones flagged status, which should mean a corrupted player shouldnt be punished for any of those kills, because its not able to be defined as griefing in this case..... BUT, if its a corrupted player killing someone who doesnt fight back, that player should absolutely gain more corruption because enough of these kills in a short enough time could absolutely be defined as griefing.
All you want is to continue to punish anyone who turns red for fighting back regardless of if it is a grief or not. This deters both PvP AND Griefing, instead of just Griefing. And thats bad design for what corruption is intended as far as what Stevens stated Corruption design is
It could still remain simple seeing as there are technically 4 flagged states. Bounty hunters flag to corrupted players and dont cause more corruption when killed, but remain as non-combatants to non-corrupt players. It would be as simple as applying this to noncombatants who attack corrupted players initially to avoid the whole snowballing corruption debacle. You would still get you flat rate corrupted penalties, but youd also be not punishing players who arent actually griefing with a black hole of kills they never intended to commit because of defending themselves. It still even maintains the entire concept of keeping non-combatants who dont want to engage in combat under the protection of causing corruption. Seems like a simple fix. Hows that for maintaining simplicity?
I've talked about this before. This kind of design would simply mean that no PKer will ever be punished (because they can always fight back, which means that a super strong player will never gain more corruption than he wants).
Imo the design of "going corrupt is your last resort in a pvp competition" is better than "going corrupt is super easy, cause no matter who attacks you afterwards - you're free to kill them w/o any additional penalty". And I believe it's better because it creates a new gameplay situation. Your risk shoots through the roof and you now have to play way more carefully if you want to avoid death and/or more corruption.
Also, a question related to your suggestion. What state would a healer who supports this "green that's flagged vs a PKer" get? Would the healer become flagged for everyone? Just for the PKer? Would he not get flagged at all?
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there?
Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight.
The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing.
Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP.
We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds.
PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone.
You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game.
There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok'
Thats your opinion, and holds no objectivity. We go by Stevens provided definition for griefing, which comes down to intent behind the PK. Killing you once for some resources and then leaving you alone is no worse than killing you for any zone control/content. Its only bad when I am intentionally trying to ruin your gameplay experience.
For one, you dont know what payouts will be better or not, nor if the risks are greater or less. Largescale PvP events are much different than 1v1 or 8v8. They tend to require much more planning and arent necessarily spontaneous.
PKing absolutely can be a high gains playstyle if it comes to resource control. Otherwise youll have nothing to worry about as there would be no point to fight for said resources. And while there is no corruption for Caravan PvP, there are still some death penalties. Including gear degradation and material drops.
And like I said several times already, it comes down to punishing griefing rather than punishing PvP. If people are actively fighting against eachother, thats PvP regardless of anyones flagged status, which should mean a corrupted player shouldnt be punished for any of those kills, because its not able to be defined as griefing in this case..... BUT, if its a corrupted player killing someone who doesnt fight back, that player should absolutely gain more corruption because enough of these kills in a short enough time could absolutely be defined as griefing.
All you want is to continue to punish anyone who turns red for fighting back regardless of if it is a grief or not. This deters both PvP AND Griefing, instead of just Griefing. And thats bad design for what corruption is intended as far as what Stevens stated Corruption design is
In what way is it opinion to say "code can't read players' minds" but not "this will scare away PvPers"? Why would Corruption scare away PvPers when the most important and impactful PvP systems don't have Corruption at all?
It'll make people think twice about ganking as their main playstyle, which is working exactly as intended. Corruption starting and ending at one kill is perfectly doable, if you choose to stop killing greens. If you are smart and don't hang around hotspots after a PK while red. If you don't PK solo around groups.
There are sooooo many ways to avoid these penalties you're scared of just by playing smart and making plans ahead of time, especially if you work within an group as it's intended, but even if you do choose to try it solo it's possible.
You are never required to kill another green. If you wanna avoid your death penalties by fighting back, keep doing so at your own risk, or lean on allies, learn how to evade people, or just eat the single round of penalties by letting this imaginary 'mob of greens' kill you and you'll no longer be red. One PK isn't zero %, but it's still a minuscule chance of dropping gear at one kill unless you are chronically ganking and have a deep corruption score for the character.
If you don't wanna play smart to avoid situations where you'll have other greens on you for a PK, you don't want to group up with people who will have your back and keep you alive through whatever conflict happens, and you don't want to eat the consequences of death while corrupted but you also don't want the consequences of avoiding it, and you still want the game to coddles reds for 'self defense', then this game might not be for you.
People can of Course - and will of Course - use the completely PvP-enabled Open World to griefplay-PK others. But it will be limited. Corruption will hinder them to pester People for Hours, i hope.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
People can of Course - and will of Course - use the completely PvP-enabled Open World to griefplay-PK others. But it will be limited. Corruption will hinder them to pester People for Hours, i hope.
That would be the hope, but it's his stance that people would be scared to PvP because of corruption that I find laughable.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
You mean the game as it is described in wiki.
We had incomplete description for caravans too and we were wondering how will caravans compete with mules. Now we have shaped inventory and various crate sizes.
In BH vs Green case will have to do some changes too if he wants to keep the Bounty Hunters.
A change could also be to remove them completely.
Because BH can see on the map where the red is and can share the information with green players without even going to hunt the red.
If the red enters the ocean and then moves to the other continent, greens engaging him there, who never left their node are most likely not involved in getting revenge for their buddy.
If BH will stay in the game, we will have to know what happens with corrupted bounty hunters.
They might kill a red fighting NCPs, 1 sec after it became green unless mechanics are adjusted to protect the BH from such cases.
What if a green and a BH attack at the same time a Red? Who takes the loot?
What if in the case above, the BH becomes red while fighting the "red transitioning to green" and the other greens engaging the red now hunts and kill the BH too?
What if a guild war or node war suddenly flags the green against the red? Will the green turn around and flee?
Back to your original statement that
"the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know."
That can be solved by quantifying the "right next to them" part and add those buddies to a hate list.
You can add other parameters too, like
- the place where the event occurred
- the state of the red. If he already removed 25% or 50% of the corruption since the last kill, then random greens who are not the victims or witnesses are acting as bounty hunters with advantage over the BH.
The game rules must be detailed so that the BH has some incentive to kill the green himself rather than helping greens to hunt the Red and then he collects the loot.
From green perspective, a Red killed by a BH should be a better revenge for them too, in case the Red escapes the initial fight-back area.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
A change could also be to remove them completely.
Because BH can see on the map where the red is and can share the information with green players without even going to hunt the red.
If the red enters the ocean and then moves to the other continent(????) greens engaging him there, who never left their node are most likely not involved in getting revenge for their buddy..
You are not that special that any player would have it out for you in particular. You're red, that means via game mechanics and game narrative that you are a known murderer/monster/corrupted mob. Also if you spent hours traveling across open sea and still didn't get enough exp to clear your corruption, you went on a spree worth a massive penalty. Seas are challenge zones and PvP hot spots. You should be soaking in exp gains there
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
A change could also be to remove them completely.
Because BH can see on the map where the red is and can share the information with green players without even going to hunt the red.
If the red enters the ocean and then moves to the other continent(????) greens engaging him there, who never left their node are most likely not involved in getting revenge for their buddy..
You are not that special that any player would have it out for you in particular. You're red, that means via game mechanics and game narrative that you are a known murderer/monster/corrupted mob. Also if you spent hours traveling across open sea and still didn't get enough exp to clear your corruption, you went on a spree worth a massive penalty. Seas are challenge zones and PvP hot spots. You should be soaking in exp gains there
Now you back out from your argument that "the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know."
and revert to the
"all greens should be able to kill a red anywhere"
I am not protecting the red against green.
I just try to find a balance for the Bounty Hunter while you don't even try.
Come up with some solutions too don't just debate and cancel whatever suggestions I make.
We don't know how fast can the red clear the corruption.
It can happen that Steven will balance it to be fast and just farming some XP at the farming spot will be enough and the green returning after being killed will find the attacker already green.
Regarding deep sea, my assumption is that you cannot clear corruption there.
That would allow any player to kill near the lawless zone and then run to safety where friendly groups can defend him.
I will make one more attempt for the Bounty Hunters.
No matter how the effort to clear the corruption is, the Bounty Hunters should be able to hunt the red also after it cleared it.
That is equivalent to having two stages:
1) rage stage, where greens can hunt the red. Green stays green.
BH gets no progression if attacks but acts as a green. BH also cannot see the Red on the map.
2) punishable by law stage, where BH can detect the former stage 1 red. Green becomes Purple if fights.
This would also mitigate cases where players cooperate to help a BH to get progression fast near a farming spot.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
A change could also be to remove them completely.
Because BH can see on the map where the red is and can share the information with green players without even going to hunt the red.
If the red enters the ocean and then moves to the other continent(????) greens engaging him there, who never left their node are most likely not involved in getting revenge for their buddy..
You are not that special that any player would have it out for you in particular. You're red, that means via game mechanics and game narrative that you are a known murderer/monster/corrupted mob. Also if you spent hours traveling across open sea and still didn't get enough exp to clear your corruption, you went on a spree worth a massive penalty. Seas are challenge zones and PvP hot spots. You should be soaking in exp gains there
Now you back out from your argument that "the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know."
and revert to the
"all greens should be able to kill a red anywhere"
I am not protecting the red against green.
I just try to find a balance for the Bounty Hunter while you don't even try.
Come up with some solutions too don't just debate and cancel whatever suggestions I make.
Your complaints had zero to do with the Bounty Hunter system and everything to do with wanting reds protected from the intended cascade effect if they continue killing greens, an effect avoidable through multiple planning measures.
Regarding deep sea, my assumption is that you cannot clear corruption there.
That would allow any player to kill near the lawless zone and then run to safety where friendly groups can defend him.
That sounds like a perfectly sensible use of a lawless zone to me, equivalent to running into the bad part of town. There would be no problem with that being a common scenario, as players could still come fight you knowing what they're in for in the lawless sea and nearby areas.
No matter how the effort to clear the corruption is, the Bounty Hunters should be able to hunt the red also after it cleared it.
That is equivalent to having two stages:
1) rage stage, where greens can hunt the red. Green stays green.
BH gets no progression if attacks but acts as a green. BH also cannot see the Red on the map.
2) punishable by law stage, where BH can detect the former stage 1 red. Green becomes Purple if fights.
This would also mitigate cases where players cooperate to help a BH to get progression fast near a farming spot.
Bounty Hunters should always get progression for killing a red at any time. It makes no sense to arbitrarily delay when they can get credit for taking down a corrupted.
Why would there be a system where BHs get no progress when they're quick on the catch?
And as you seem to forget, reds benefit from greens not flagging on them, too. Greens suffer double the penalties of a purple, from exp debt (and associated stay damp), to the currency they drop, to the materials they drop. You gain more corruption if you choose to continue killing them, but you also gain more resources.
I personally don't see any issue at all with reds being ffa KoS to all players, and they don't need any protections for it. The consequences aren't gonna stop me from going red on occasion, doubt it'd stop much of anyone because the vast majority are going to do so for strategic advantageous reasons, not over generic farm spots for bottom of the barrel PvP engagements.
It could still remain simple seeing as there are technically 4 flagged states. Bounty hunters flag to corrupted players and dont cause more corruption when killed, but remain as non-combatants to non-corrupt players. It would be as simple as applying this to noncombatants who attack corrupted players initially to avoid the whole snowballing corruption debacle. You would still get you flat rate corrupted penalties, but youd also be not punishing players who arent actually griefing with a black hole of kills they never intended to commit because of defending themselves. It still even maintains the entire concept of keeping non-combatants who dont want to engage in combat under the protection of causing corruption. Seems like a simple fix. Hows that for maintaining simplicity?
I've talked about this before. This kind of design would simply mean that no PKer will ever be punished (because they can always fight back, which means that a super strong player will never gain more corruption than he wants).
Imo the design of "going corrupt is your last resort in a pvp competition" is better than "going corrupt is super easy, cause no matter who attacks you afterwards - you're free to kill them w/o any additional penalty". And I believe it's better because it creates a new gameplay situation. Your risk shoots through the roof and you now have to play way more carefully if you want to avoid death and/or more corruption.
Also, a question related to your suggestion. What state would a healer who supports this "green that's flagged vs a PKer" get? Would the healer become flagged for everyone? Just for the PKer? Would he not get flagged at all?
"last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario.
Punishing for kills not able to be defined as griefing is counter-intuitive to the system. And with your argument of "corrupted players would only ever be as corrupted as they choose to be. That in itself is detering all griefing by preventing excessive PKs because those corrupted players not wishing to stack up killing sprees pf corruption debt would have to either go work off their corruption after only a few kills, spacing out times between PKs enough to not be conisdered griefing if repeated; or they'd get killed which is also payoff in itself. Thats doing exactly what the system is designed for. The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned.
As far as gameplay goes, youre still going to have massive risk with death penalties as a corrupted player, even with 1 PK. All the exponential corruption growth for defending yourself does is never make you want to even risk a corruption kill. The risk FAR exceeds any sort of reward even a single PK can give. And that deters PvP, not just griefing.
I would say theyd be flagged the same as the green player. Itd be similar to bounty hunter flag, the only difference being that you would maintain the Debuffs on the red players according to their level of corruption, and as it currently goes, the green attackers would maintain their CC immunities as well. My suggestion would simply not give the red player corruption for killing either of them since theyd be actively engaging in a PvP fight.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there?
Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight.
The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing.
Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP.
We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds.
PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone.
You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game.
There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok'
Thats your opinion, and holds no objectivity. We go by Stevens provided definition for griefing, which comes down to intent behind the PK. Killing you once for some resources and then leaving you alone is no worse than killing you for any zone control/content. Its only bad when I am intentionally trying to ruin your gameplay experience.
For one, you dont know what payouts will be better or not, nor if the risks are greater or less. Largescale PvP events are much different than 1v1 or 8v8. They tend to require much more planning and arent necessarily spontaneous.
PKing absolutely can be a high gains playstyle if it comes to resource control. Otherwise youll have nothing to worry about as there would be no point to fight for said resources. And while there is no corruption for Caravan PvP, there are still some death penalties. Including gear degradation and material drops.
And like I said several times already, it comes down to punishing griefing rather than punishing PvP. If people are actively fighting against eachother, thats PvP regardless of anyones flagged status, which should mean a corrupted player shouldnt be punished for any of those kills, because its not able to be defined as griefing in this case..... BUT, if its a corrupted player killing someone who doesnt fight back, that player should absolutely gain more corruption because enough of these kills in a short enough time could absolutely be defined as griefing.
All you want is to continue to punish anyone who turns red for fighting back regardless of if it is a grief or not. This deters both PvP AND Griefing, instead of just Griefing. And thats bad design for what corruption is intended as far as what Stevens stated Corruption design is
In what way is it opinion to say "code can't read players' minds" but not "this will scare away PvPers"? Why would Corruption scare away PvPers when the most important and impactful PvP systems don't have Corruption at all?
It'll make people think twice about ganking as their main playstyle, which is working exactly as intended. Corruption starting and ending at one kill is perfectly doable, if you choose to stop killing greens. If you are smart and don't hang around hotspots after a PK while red. If you don't PK solo around groups.
There are sooooo many ways to avoid these penalties you're scared of just by playing smart and making plans ahead of time, especially if you work within an group as it's intended, but even if you do choose to try it solo it's possible.
You are never required to kill another green. If you wanna avoid your death penalties by fighting back, keep doing so at your own risk, or lean on allies, learn how to evade people, or just eat the single round of penalties by letting this imaginary 'mob of greens' kill you and you'll no longer be red. One PK isn't zero %, but it's still a minuscule chance of dropping gear at one kill unless you are chronically ganking and have a deep corruption score for the character.
If you don't wanna play smart to avoid situations where you'll have other greens on you for a PK, you don't want to group up with people who will have your back and keep you alive through whatever conflict happens, and you don't want to eat the consequences of death while corrupted but you also don't want the consequences of avoiding it, and you still want the game to coddles reds for 'self defense', then this game might not be for you.
"Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP." This is what I was referring to as an opinion.
Corruption, as is, will deter open world PvP. Thats what corruption is effecting. Its goal is to deter griefing, not open world PvP engagement. You constantly directing PvP players to PvP events makes it seem like you dont want any open world PvP at all. Having Open world PvP and the PKs you are so vehemently against are part of the risk that is supposed to come with going into the open world to do content. If you take PKing (not griefing) off the table, you are removing an important risk for the design of ashes. And my suggestion doesnt remove the risk for PKers, they still get corrupted, it just wont be so excessively punishing that corrupted kills would be so rare that they arent even an uncommon factor.
"just give up if you are corrupted" is a wild suggestion, but as is, thats pretty much all one will likely be able to do once engaged. Even without gaining corruption for defending oneself, every corrupted player with even a single kill is incentivized to be very careful while they work it off due to the death penalties.
I honestly want to know how I am suggesting corrupted players be coddled with all of the death penalties they recieve, along with the disadvantages that defending themselves against a non-combatant already gives. This is purely a suggestion based on the intent of the system. Dont deter PvP, focus on the actual griefing. I get it, if you get killed once randomly, you think whoever did that is the worst person in the world even if you never see them again so you think they should burn in hell.
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.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
A change could also be to remove them completely.
Because BH can see on the map where the red is and can share the information with green players without even going to hunt the red.
If the red enters the ocean and then moves to the other continent(????) greens engaging him there, who never left their node are most likely not involved in getting revenge for their buddy..
You are not that special that any player would have it out for you in particular. You're red, that means via game mechanics and game narrative that you are a known murderer/monster/corrupted mob. Also if you spent hours traveling across open sea and still didn't get enough exp to clear your corruption, you went on a spree worth a massive penalty. Seas are challenge zones and PvP hot spots. You should be soaking in exp gains there
Now you back out from your argument that "the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know."
and revert to the
"all greens should be able to kill a red anywhere"
I am not protecting the red against green.
I just try to find a balance for the Bounty Hunter while you don't even try.
Come up with some solutions too don't just debate and cancel whatever suggestions I make.
We don't know how fast can the red clear the corruption.
It can happen that Steven will balance it to be fast and just farming some XP at the farming spot will be enough and the green returning after being killed will find the attacker already green.
Regarding deep sea, my assumption is that you cannot clear corruption there.
That would allow any player to kill near the lawless zone and then run to safety where friendly groups can defend him.
I will make one more attempt for the Bounty Hunters.
No matter how the effort to clear the corruption is, the Bounty Hunters should be able to hunt the red also after it cleared it.
That is equivalent to having two stages:
1) rage stage, where greens can hunt the red. Green stays green.
BH gets no progression if attacks but acts as a green. BH also cannot see the Red on the map.
2) punishable by law stage, where BH can detect the former stage 1 red. Green becomes Purple if fights.
This would also mitigate cases where players cooperate to help a BH to get progression fast near a farming spot.
Definitely planning to test out going corrupt and jumping on a friends ship to go work off corruption. More or less to report how efficient or pointless it is so it can be tweaked. I am indifferent to the idea of being able to sail away corrupted, or to punish corruption for fleeing to the sea.
One idea that comes to mind is to track corruption according to the node zone of influence, requiring players to work off their corruption within that ZOI instead of porting away or moving to another area. This is just an idea off the top of my head though so there could definitely be flaws.
Definitely planning to test out going corrupt and jumping on a friends ship to go work off corruption.
Careful, your corruption may become a key part of my gear acquisition plan.
One of the things I do like about the ocean being a lawless zone is that it gives bandits a place to run to. Like Charlie and Michael hoofing it to the sea in Beirut 'They won't fuck with us in the water.' Gold star to anyone who get's that reference.
Definitely planning to test out going corrupt and jumping on a friends ship to go work off corruption.
Careful, your corruption may become a key part of my gear acquisition plan.
One of the things I do like about the ocean being a lawless zone is that it gives bandits a place to run to. Like Charlie and Michael hoofing it to the sea in Beirut 'They won't fuck with us in the water.' Gold star to anyone who get's that reference.
Hahaha, bring it on!
I more or less want to see how it feels if a corrupted player is able to jump onto a guildies ship and sail away tucked away in the haul until they find a nice spot to grind xp. If I can get away with it 9 times out of 10, I feel like it may need a bit of a barrier to that sort of thing.
Comments
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
It could still remain simple seeing as there are technically 4 flagged states. Bounty hunters flag to corrupted players and dont cause more corruption when killed, but remain as non-combatants to non-corrupt players. It would be as simple as applying this to noncombatants who attack corrupted players initially to avoid the whole snowballing corruption debacle. You would still get you flat rate corrupted penalties, but youd also be not punishing players who arent actually griefing with a black hole of kills they never intended to commit because of defending themselves. It still even maintains the entire concept of keeping non-combatants who dont want to engage in combat under the protection of causing corruption. Seems like a simple fix. Hows that for maintaining simplicity?
Apparently you dont get the meme...
Uh huh, I bet lol
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
its a variation of this meme
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cant-argue-with-that-technically-not-wrong
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there?
Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight.
The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
It only escalates when you do something stupid like PK solo in the face of a group.
Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing.
Still going to sacrifice a non-combatant for the edge with how corruption is currently. Even if we die as a group of non-combatants, I and others will have bounty hunter alts to take advantage of the system and immediately hunt our assailants down for the exponential rewards of killing our corrupted killers.
Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP.
We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds.
PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone.
You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify, much less codify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game.
There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok'
Thats your opinion, and holds no objectivity. We go by Stevens provided definition for griefing, which comes down to intent behind the PK. Killing you once for some resources and then leaving you alone is no worse than killing you for any zone control/content. Its only bad when I am intentionally trying to ruin your gameplay experience.
For one, you dont know what payouts will be better or not, nor if the risks are greater or less. Largescale PvP events are much different than 1v1 or 8v8. They tend to require much more planning and arent necessarily spontaneous.
PKing absolutely can be a high gains playstyle if it comes to resource control. Otherwise youll have nothing to worry about as there would be no point to fight for said resources. And while there is no corruption for Caravan PvP, there are still some death penalties. Including gear degradation and material drops.
And like I said several times already, it comes down to punishing griefing rather than punishing PvP. If people are actively fighting against eachother, thats PvP regardless of anyones flagged status, which should mean a corrupted player shouldnt be punished for any of those kills, because its not able to be defined as griefing in this case..... BUT, if its a corrupted player killing someone who doesnt fight back, that player should absolutely gain more corruption because enough of these kills in a short enough time could absolutely be defined as griefing.
All you want is to continue to punish anyone who turns red for fighting back regardless of if it is a grief or not. This deters both PvP AND Griefing, instead of just Griefing. And thats bad design for what corruption is intended as far as what Stevens stated Corruption design is
Imo the design of "going corrupt is your last resort in a pvp competition" is better than "going corrupt is super easy, cause no matter who attacks you afterwards - you're free to kill them w/o any additional penalty". And I believe it's better because it creates a new gameplay situation. Your risk shoots through the roof and you now have to play way more carefully if you want to avoid death and/or more corruption.
Also, a question related to your suggestion. What state would a healer who supports this "green that's flagged vs a PKer" get? Would the healer become flagged for everyone? Just for the PKer? Would he not get flagged at all?
In what way is it opinion to say "code can't read players' minds" but not "this will scare away PvPers"? Why would Corruption scare away PvPers when the most important and impactful PvP systems don't have Corruption at all?
It'll make people think twice about ganking as their main playstyle, which is working exactly as intended. Corruption starting and ending at one kill is perfectly doable, if you choose to stop killing greens. If you are smart and don't hang around hotspots after a PK while red. If you don't PK solo around groups.
There are sooooo many ways to avoid these penalties you're scared of just by playing smart and making plans ahead of time, especially if you work within an group as it's intended, but even if you do choose to try it solo it's possible.
You are never required to kill another green. If you wanna avoid your death penalties by fighting back, keep doing so at your own risk, or lean on allies, learn how to evade people, or just eat the single round of penalties by letting this imaginary 'mob of greens' kill you and you'll no longer be red. One PK isn't zero %, but it's still a minuscule chance of dropping gear at one kill unless you are chronically ganking and have a deep corruption score for the character.
If you don't wanna play smart to avoid situations where you'll have other greens on you for a PK, you don't want to group up with people who will have your back and keep you alive through whatever conflict happens, and you don't want to eat the consequences of death while corrupted but you also don't want the consequences of avoiding it, and you still want the game to coddles reds for 'self defense', then this game might not be for you.
I mean that i can understand his point ... ...
People can of Course - and will of Course - use the completely PvP-enabled Open World to griefplay-PK others. But it will be limited. Corruption will hinder them to pester People for Hours, i hope.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
That would be the hope, but it's his stance that people would be scared to PvP because of corruption that I find laughable.
You mean the game as it is described in wiki.
We had incomplete description for caravans too and we were wondering how will caravans compete with mules. Now we have shaped inventory and various crate sizes.
In BH vs Green case will have to do some changes too if he wants to keep the Bounty Hunters.
A change could also be to remove them completely.
Because BH can see on the map where the red is and can share the information with green players without even going to hunt the red.
If the red enters the ocean and then moves to the other continent, greens engaging him there, who never left their node are most likely not involved in getting revenge for their buddy.
If BH will stay in the game, we will have to know what happens with corrupted bounty hunters.
They might kill a red fighting NCPs, 1 sec after it became green unless mechanics are adjusted to protect the BH from such cases.
What if a green and a BH attack at the same time a Red? Who takes the loot?
What if in the case above, the BH becomes red while fighting the "red transitioning to green" and the other greens engaging the red now hunts and kill the BH too?
What if a guild war or node war suddenly flags the green against the red? Will the green turn around and flee?
Back to your original statement that
"the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know."
That can be solved by quantifying the "right next to them" part and add those buddies to a hate list.
You can add other parameters too, like
- the place where the event occurred
- the state of the red. If he already removed 25% or 50% of the corruption since the last kill, then random greens who are not the victims or witnesses are acting as bounty hunters with advantage over the BH.
The game rules must be detailed so that the BH has some incentive to kill the green himself rather than helping greens to hunt the Red and then he collects the loot.
From green perspective, a Red killed by a BH should be a better revenge for them too, in case the Red escapes the initial fight-back area.
You are not that special that any player would have it out for you in particular. You're red, that means via game mechanics and game narrative that you are a known murderer/monster/corrupted mob. Also if you spent hours traveling across open sea and still didn't get enough exp to clear your corruption, you went on a spree worth a massive penalty. Seas are challenge zones and PvP hot spots. You should be soaking in exp gains there
Now you back out from your argument that "the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know."
and revert to the
"all greens should be able to kill a red anywhere"
I am not protecting the red against green.
I just try to find a balance for the Bounty Hunter while you don't even try.
Come up with some solutions too don't just debate and cancel whatever suggestions I make.
We don't know how fast can the red clear the corruption.
It can happen that Steven will balance it to be fast and just farming some XP at the farming spot will be enough and the green returning after being killed will find the attacker already green.
Regarding deep sea, my assumption is that you cannot clear corruption there.
That would allow any player to kill near the lawless zone and then run to safety where friendly groups can defend him.
I will make one more attempt for the Bounty Hunters.
No matter how the effort to clear the corruption is, the Bounty Hunters should be able to hunt the red also after it cleared it.
That is equivalent to having two stages:
1) rage stage, where greens can hunt the red. Green stays green.
BH gets no progression if attacks but acts as a green. BH also cannot see the Red on the map.
2) punishable by law stage, where BH can detect the former stage 1 red. Green becomes Purple if fights.
This would also mitigate cases where players cooperate to help a BH to get progression fast near a farming spot.
I think this could be done through the Bags system and make both systems even better.
Your complaints had zero to do with the Bounty Hunter system and everything to do with wanting reds protected from the intended cascade effect if they continue killing greens, an effect avoidable through multiple planning measures.
That sounds like a perfectly sensible use of a lawless zone to me, equivalent to running into the bad part of town. There would be no problem with that being a common scenario, as players could still come fight you knowing what they're in for in the lawless sea and nearby areas.
Bounty Hunters should always get progression for killing a red at any time. It makes no sense to arbitrarily delay when they can get credit for taking down a corrupted.
Why would there be a system where BHs get no progress when they're quick on the catch?
And as you seem to forget, reds benefit from greens not flagging on them, too. Greens suffer double the penalties of a purple, from exp debt (and associated stay damp), to the currency they drop, to the materials they drop. You gain more corruption if you choose to continue killing them, but you also gain more resources.
I personally don't see any issue at all with reds being ffa KoS to all players, and they don't need any protections for it. The consequences aren't gonna stop me from going red on occasion, doubt it'd stop much of anyone because the vast majority are going to do so for strategic advantageous reasons, not over generic farm spots for bottom of the barrel PvP engagements.
"last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario.
Punishing for kills not able to be defined as griefing is counter-intuitive to the system. And with your argument of "corrupted players would only ever be as corrupted as they choose to be. That in itself is detering all griefing by preventing excessive PKs because those corrupted players not wishing to stack up killing sprees pf corruption debt would have to either go work off their corruption after only a few kills, spacing out times between PKs enough to not be conisdered griefing if repeated; or they'd get killed which is also payoff in itself. Thats doing exactly what the system is designed for. The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned.
As far as gameplay goes, youre still going to have massive risk with death penalties as a corrupted player, even with 1 PK. All the exponential corruption growth for defending yourself does is never make you want to even risk a corruption kill. The risk FAR exceeds any sort of reward even a single PK can give. And that deters PvP, not just griefing.
I would say theyd be flagged the same as the green player. Itd be similar to bounty hunter flag, the only difference being that you would maintain the Debuffs on the red players according to their level of corruption, and as it currently goes, the green attackers would maintain their CC immunities as well. My suggestion would simply not give the red player corruption for killing either of them since theyd be actively engaging in a PvP fight.
"Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP." This is what I was referring to as an opinion.
Corruption, as is, will deter open world PvP. Thats what corruption is effecting. Its goal is to deter griefing, not open world PvP engagement. You constantly directing PvP players to PvP events makes it seem like you dont want any open world PvP at all. Having Open world PvP and the PKs you are so vehemently against are part of the risk that is supposed to come with going into the open world to do content. If you take PKing (not griefing) off the table, you are removing an important risk for the design of ashes. And my suggestion doesnt remove the risk for PKers, they still get corrupted, it just wont be so excessively punishing that corrupted kills would be so rare that they arent even an uncommon factor.
"just give up if you are corrupted" is a wild suggestion, but as is, thats pretty much all one will likely be able to do once engaged. Even without gaining corruption for defending oneself, every corrupted player with even a single kill is incentivized to be very careful while they work it off due to the death penalties.
I honestly want to know how I am suggesting corrupted players be coddled with all of the death penalties they recieve, along with the disadvantages that defending themselves against a non-combatant already gives. This is purely a suggestion based on the intent of the system. Dont deter PvP, focus on the actual griefing. I get it, if you get killed once randomly, you think whoever did that is the worst person in the world even if you never see them again so you think they should burn in hell.
Definitely planning to test out going corrupt and jumping on a friends ship to go work off corruption. More or less to report how efficient or pointless it is so it can be tweaked. I am indifferent to the idea of being able to sail away corrupted, or to punish corruption for fleeing to the sea.
One idea that comes to mind is to track corruption according to the node zone of influence, requiring players to work off their corruption within that ZOI instead of porting away or moving to another area. This is just an idea off the top of my head though so there could definitely be flaws.
Careful, your corruption may become a key part of my gear acquisition plan.
One of the things I do like about the ocean being a lawless zone is that it gives bandits a place to run to. Like Charlie and Michael hoofing it to the sea in Beirut 'They won't fuck with us in the water.' Gold star to anyone who get's that reference.
Hahaha, bring it on!
I more or less want to see how it feels if a corrupted player is able to jump onto a guildies ship and sail away tucked away in the haul until they find a nice spot to grind xp. If I can get away with it 9 times out of 10, I feel like it may need a bit of a barrier to that sort of thing.