Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones. When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback. So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place. That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it. There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas. As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back. So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat. What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing? That’s not normal PK’ing though as normal PK’ing is knowing the risk such as in a lawless zone I’ve accepted the risk. The risk being it’s a PvP zone so I know anyone who’s not in my guild, group or alliance could be a threat. At that point I’ve accepted the fact I could be ganked or even end up fighting over resources. However a green who is neither in a lawless PvP zone or flagged for combat who probably doesn’t want to fight doesn’t necessarily know or accept the risk of being PK’d. What you’re doing at that point is getting upset over resources in a non-PvP zone or trying to force them out of a farming area which is griefing. A caravan system is the same thing as a PvP zone you know the risk that there’s an opt-in PvP system and PK’ing system for caravans. If you’re silly enough to transport knowing you can be attacked by people opting into being a combatant or potentially stealing your goods, and you don’t take precautions or get friends to help you transport or plan a safe route that’s at your own risk. If you can be attacked by someone, you're in a PvP enabled zone... You are knowingly going into a zone where you know anyone can kill you...its normal PKing. The only difference is that it can give corruption to the attacker. Someone who PKs, isn't a griefer. A Griefer PKs for the sake of negatively impacting other players gameplay. A normal PKer PK's for personal advancement within the game. I'll put this here yet again "The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[17] – Steven Sharif" "When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif"
Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones. When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback. So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place. That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it. There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas. As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back. So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat. What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing? That’s not normal PK’ing though as normal PK’ing is knowing the risk such as in a lawless zone I’ve accepted the risk. The risk being it’s a PvP zone so I know anyone who’s not in my guild, group or alliance could be a threat. At that point I’ve accepted the fact I could be ganked or even end up fighting over resources. However a green who is neither in a lawless PvP zone or flagged for combat who probably doesn’t want to fight doesn’t necessarily know or accept the risk of being PK’d. What you’re doing at that point is getting upset over resources in a non-PvP zone or trying to force them out of a farming area which is griefing. A caravan system is the same thing as a PvP zone you know the risk that there’s an opt-in PvP system and PK’ing system for caravans. If you’re silly enough to transport knowing you can be attacked by people opting into being a combatant or potentially stealing your goods, and you don’t take precautions or get friends to help you transport or plan a safe route that’s at your own risk.
Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones. When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback. So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place. That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it. There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas. As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back. So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat. What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing?
Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones. When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback. So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place. That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it. There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas.
Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones. When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones. When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback. So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place. That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it. There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas. As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back. So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat. What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing? That’s not normal PK’ing though as normal PK’ing is knowing the risk such as in a lawless zone I’ve accepted the risk. The risk being it’s a PvP zone so I know anyone who’s not in my guild, group or alliance could be a threat. At that point I’ve accepted the fact I could be ganked or even end up fighting over resources. However a green who is neither in a lawless PvP zone or flagged for combat who probably doesn’t want to fight doesn’t necessarily know or accept the risk of being PK’d. What you’re doing at that point is getting upset over resources in a non-PvP zone or trying to force them out of a farming area which is griefing. A caravan system is the same thing as a PvP zone you know the risk that there’s an opt-in PvP system and PK’ing system for caravans. If you’re silly enough to transport knowing you can be attacked by people opting into being a combatant or potentially stealing your goods, and you don’t take precautions or get friends to help you transport or plan a safe route that’s at your own risk. If you can be attacked by someone, you're in a PvP enabled zone... You are knowingly going into a zone where you know anyone can kill you...its normal PKing. The only difference is that it can give corruption to the attacker. Someone who PKs, isn't a griefer. A Griefer PKs for the sake of negatively impacting other players gameplay. A normal PKer PK's for personal advancement within the game. I'll put this here yet again "The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[17] – Steven Sharif" "When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif" I feel like you’re trying to twist those words in your favour and you’re the one who doesn’t understand. Personally I have no reason to attack another green player outside of designated PvP Mechanics, Caravans, Events or Zones intended for fair PvP where we both understand the risk involved. It doesn’t give me personal advancement to get a small amount of mats that are low tier from someone outside of a lawless zone when the rewards there are supposed to be far better. Also if I lose a fight to someone fairly group vs group or 1v1 then I’m just bad so it’s my own fault for going into those zones in the first place. I also don’t like the idea of pushing people out for farming spots or zones because you can’t share a farming spot or wait for them to respawn. If it was a lawless zone fair enough go ham gank or PK them but if it’s just some green gathering some average materials in the forest near my node I’m not going to get mad then kill him because he took some virtual resources some pixels. However if you attack me first as a green which you shouldn’t as you can’t even CC me or put certain status buffs on me. Then when I clap you and you lose you should feel bad hopefully losing more than me. As I said again that’s not normal PK’ing to go hostile attacking randoms greens without consent that are just going about their normal PvE/Gathering activities outside of riskier designated zones. I’ve got nothing more to say on this it’s like I’m talking to a wall or shouting into a dark cavern Echo… Echo… Echo chamber! We will see when the game comes out I honestly can’t tell you if anything will change or not. However the current system makes sense to me and if it’s not the way I understand it then it’s just going to be one big PvP server which doesn’t bother me I love it. The corruption systems there for the benefit of the non-PvP players or people that prefer to do PvE/Gathering without some risks. I’m more pro-PvP than PvE which is why I’m always mentioning PvX. However there is different types of players in this game, and different people that make up the community that’s what you’ve got to understand. It is like they’re literally giving you a place or systems or events to go to PvP, PK players and not have corruption consequences. Then it’s like you’re saying no I don’t want that I just want to kill greens whenever I feel like it because they made me angry and took my farming spot.
Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » ShivaFang wrote: » Otr wrote: » No, they are not monsters. 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.
Otr wrote: » ShivaFang wrote: » Otr wrote: » No, they are not monsters. 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.
ShivaFang wrote: » Otr wrote: » No, they are not monsters. 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.
Otr wrote: » No, they are not monsters.
pyreal wrote: » Don't forget this point: RED means you did WRONG. And vengeance is coming.
Ludullu wrote: » If a player who's about to become Red is not ready to die as a Red - he was not ready to be Red. That's it. If you're afraid that others can now freely kill you because you're Red and you DON'T want to die to them - you weren't prepared to be Red. If you became Red over some daisies that a Green player was gathering, but now you complain that others can freely kill you - those daisies weren't worth becoming Red over and/or you're a weakling who couldn't contest a location better. In other words, all the Reds complaining that they can be killed by a mob w/o being able to defend themselves are just weaklings who won't survive the game Git gud bois
Dolyem wrote: » Griefers are the only ones who should be truly punished. So not all reds as it currently is designed are the same.
Pendragxn wrote: » I have an idea why don’t we just make the whole map a lawless zone? Hear me out this would solve all problems and we can all have one massive battle royale and I also think we should make it full loot
Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Griefers are the only ones who should be truly punished. So not all reds as it currently is designed are the same. And I've always said, I want the first 3-4 PKs to be clearable relatively quickly. But as long as you're Red - you're a free pinata to anyone around you at 0 cost, so you better be truly prepared to become that pinata.
Dolyem wrote: » Why would you not want severity of punishment to correlate with the amount of corruption?
Dolyem wrote: » And why is it better to apply the maximum punishment across all levels of corruption and only affecting how quickly one can become uncorrupted?
Dolyem wrote: » I think we have already discussed with eachother our views on defending oneself as a corrupted player against greens and the resulting additional corruption for it.
Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Why would you not want severity of punishment to correlate with the amount of corruption? Because the state itself is binary. You're either Red or not. Dolyem wrote: » And why is it better to apply the maximum punishment across all levels of corruption and only affecting how quickly one can become uncorrupted? I perefer it being the binary way, cause it's way easier to explain and, imo, seems more logical as well. If you're Red - your penalties are obvious. And you remain Red even if you have a single point of corruption. Dolyem wrote: » I think we have already discussed with eachother our views on defending oneself as a corrupted player against greens and the resulting additional corruption for it. Once you step onto the downward spiral - the only way to come off is to either grind or die. If you weren't ready to grind it off - you better be prepared to die
Serukkq wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I have an idea why don’t we just make the whole map a lawless zone? Hear me out this would solve all problems and we can all have one massive battle royale and I also think we should make it full loot Hell yeah, lets go!
Dolyem wrote: » I am asking for some objective reasoning. Not "Because I like it that way"
Dolyem wrote: » And red is simply an indicator. We even saw the corruption debuff itself has a number on it, showing there are levels.
CROW3 wrote: » Objectively speaking, the simpler the red state the easier it is for greens and purples to justify hunting and killing the red. The more players killing reds, the less desired it is to be red, which will decrease overall griefing of greens.
Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I am asking for some objective reasoning. Not "Because I like it that way" Objectivity is in the design here. It's a binary system, so the punishment is also binary. Dolyem wrote: » And red is simply an indicator. We even saw the corruption debuff itself has a number on it, showing there are levels. Right now I think those numbers simply indicate how many kills you've got, so it's easier for the person to know how much corruption they have. Considering they've said nothing about penalty severness steps I doubt that number indicates that kind of mechanic.
Dolyem wrote: » CROW3 wrote: » Objectively speaking, the simpler the red state the easier it is for greens and purples to justify hunting and killing the red. The more players killing reds, the less desired it is to be red, which will decrease overall griefing of greens. And in that oversimplified system, you also deter engagement of PvP as a whole. Others and myself included will utilize corruption as a shield if corruption is too punishing immediately. Anytime someone engages me I let them kill me and then i use my bounty hunter alt or friends to hunt them down ASAP and get everything and more back, and if they fight back, it gets even worse for them if they kill me again.
