grisu wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » Ok, words where said. Sadly you missed all the actual conversation going on below where you claim to have stopped reading so your thoughts are reflected on such little information. Way to turn a blind eye to things, but it is an option you are allowed to chose. Ok I read further and it's exactly the same, just trying to spin your awful behaviour on having fun at the cost of others into a positive. Nothing changed from what I gathered in the first 3 sentences and it was a waste of time. If you want to be a bad guy you should be handled like one and not empowered.
SSRogue wrote: » Ok, words where said. Sadly you missed all the actual conversation going on below where you claim to have stopped reading so your thoughts are reflected on such little information. Way to turn a blind eye to things, but it is an option you are allowed to chose.
Raoul9753 wrote: » You know SSRogue, i get the same vibe of you i get from those people in D&D who play a murder hoboing party stealing rogue with the “its what my Charakter would do“ excuse. And there is a reason noone wants these guys at a table, unless the whole party is playing like this. The pure concept of “being the bad guy“ in a multiplayer enviroment is flawed from the beginning, because to be a “bad guy“ you need an unwilling victim, otherwise you would just be a pvper. And that means your enjoyment in the game is directly tied to reducing another players enjoyment in the game, and more often than not by a greater amount than your gain. Notice where this gets problematic? Rewarding the killing of unwilling players will just lead to what happened on wow pvp servers back when phase 2 hobor was introduced: rogue groups sneaking around leveling areas and sniping players who gove them rewards but are unable to fight back, while totaly avoiding players that would pose a fight. You claim that you dont want to grief, but you are asking for a system that allows you to have fun by causing grief for others, otherwise you could literally just play any single player rpg and be the bad guy all you want, but you spezificly want to do it in a way that involves real victims. Otherwise you would have asked about a thiefs guild/assassins guild style system where you steak from or assassinate npcs, but you didnt, you specifically asked if the game lets you be a bad guy towards other players. And sorry, that in itself is the pure definition of griefing.
Atama wrote: » I see this as like going “red side” in a superhero game. It’s sometimes fun to role play as an evil character without actually playing like a jerk against other players. I’m not sure what the Ashes equivalent of that might be, but I do like the “evil deity worshipper” idea.
noaani wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » I feel like it is a far more punishing system, then it is a way to play the game. This is it right here. Corruption is not a way to play the game, nor is it meant to be. Corruption is a penalty, and nothing else. Intrepid do not want to prevent you from killing other players without reason, but they want to give you absolutely no encouragement to do it, either.
SSRogue wrote: » I feel like it is a far more punishing system, then it is a way to play the game.
SSRogue wrote: » I am sorry sir but you are not reading everything and it is ok, u just want to have your voice heard it that is allowed. However, others are making conversation and talking about the systems that already exist like monster coin, caravans and guild raids. We are only trying to think of other potential systems not random pking. It's ok to have a point of view, but don't falsely put others down just to make yourself seem more legitimate to your own personal view.
SSRogue wrote: » I don't want to just be a griefing player killer, but I do want some incentive to play a bad character that keeps the fancy lads and goody players on their toes. So far I see more in=game mechanics dedicated to punishing these types of actions and only allowing just a tiny taste of the bad life, I don't see anything that rewards players for taking this path.
SSRogue wrote: » I want to start this off by saying that I understand how taboo pvp is to a large portion of players. Most people want great story arc progression and maybe others are interested in pvp just enough for the rewards, achievements, gear etc. I would like to present another type of player, not necessarily a roleplay type person but a person who wants to be a bad guy.
Adaon wrote: » When I look at this proposed PVP system, the color codes/flags/benefits/penalties, I'm taken back to my time in Ultima Online, which had a similar system Red(accumulated short and long term murders)/Blue(normal)/Grey(recently attacked a blue/grey player). I would imagine the OP is thinking more along the lines of the UO system where being the "bad guy" or a murderer had different implications than this system will have. This system doesn't seem one that really allows for you to pursue that path, because the penalty that goes along with it - is actually a huge bane to continuing to fight people(or seems at least). Ultima in lieu of corruption had something called murder counts, short and long term - you got them for killing blue players(non combatants), I can't remember the exact durations but if you had 4 or more long term murders you turned Red basically, which meant you couldn't set foot in most major cities - and if you did players could simply say "guards" and you would be struck down dead from a bolt of lightning, give or take. Murder counts only cleared based on elapsed time, long term was like 1-2 hours I think per count, and they expired one at a time. So players who wanted to keep their murder counts low - could, but if you wanted to forsake access to towns and conventional social settings, you could be permanently red. Anyone could attack you - and suffer no penalty, and often probably similar to this system, there were a lot of rewards for killing the player(outside of the ffa/full loot system in place already). There were also specifically designated revive points(wandering red healers) for Red players, and a city or two(a pirate themed one), where Red players could still interact with certain shops and other things. It was a lifestyle choice, rather than a system to necessarily game with penalties/etc. I don't really see a similar spirit in this system, here it seems very cut and dry that Red(corrupted) is not a lifestyle choice, just a penalty, and one you will invariably get rid of, and if it's something within the players immediate control and ability to influence (like dying/other mechanics), they'll likely be aiming not to stay that way very long. I could be wrong, but I think that's the dichotomy between what this system is, and perhaps something in the spirit of what the OP is discussing. I was personally a fan of UO's method, and being able to be a player killer as a lifestyle choice, once a character was at a point that most conventional social/town settings weren't as necessary. Also(in my case) I was Red, but strictly killed other Red players, it was just due to certain scenarios with non reds assisting red players, that one might end up becoming Red anyway, Blue players healing Reds, or doing other things to influence a fight in a support capacity. In any event, old school nostalgia, I at least like that this game has some kind of nuanced system to begin with, even if something in the past has done it more to my personal preferences, and again possibly in the spirit of the OP's thoughts there. Edit: Just to note, this is purely hypothetical, since I haven't seen this games actual system at work, and I don't know how it will play out, just speculating so I could be misunderstanding the variables, and the practical application entirely.
Leonheart wrote: » As far as I read there is some ambiguity within the words "bad guy" which is understandable. Role play as a free bad guy without ruin other player gameplay is not easy. And play a bad guy role within boundary isn't feels good, especially if you have that trait in your real life. So it is ended up in the developer choice. More freedom on bad guy role play usually bring toxicity into play. Less "normal" player will continue to play. But in the same time they have less space for bad guy addict. The irony is, they usually bring (ehm).. more cash than "normal" player.
Kohl wrote: » @SSRogue WoW seems to be doing fine in this regard. But there are no factions in AoC, therefore the only way to flag someone as killable in the open world is through guild-wars. There's bound to be a guild dedicated to declaring wars on every other guild, and using it to flag as many players as they can, giving them the freedom to kill players, rendering corruption useless. I've seen this happen in EVE, so players can kill others in heavily patrolled concord systems. So don't feel discouraged yet OP. There's always a way!
IllusionTokomi wrote: »
SSRogue wrote: » However, there seems to be clear and overwhelming evidence that they are (presently) dead set against what you desire.
grisu wrote: » Caravan doesn't punish you for raiding it, that is an intended pvp zone without corruption, like a battlefield, like a duel, like an arena. Maybe you should look into that before trying to make it appear otherwise. There is plenty of pvp on all scales, from every day things like robbing caravans which can massively imped players as well as nodes up to massive battlefields and sieges. Somehow you want more than being able to cripple nodes and being able to destroy an entire days work or even week of a player AND be rewarded beyond that. So yeah, no.
PlagueMonk wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » But I digress........I tried skimming through all the posts and didn't see anyone mention the one thing that I feel being a corrupt player should be about......the challenge. If you can take on bounty hunters, and kill combatants while fighting at diminished fighting ability, that will be a bad a**ed player indeed and what you should be striving for as a 'bad guy', not ganking non-combatants. I will also say that terms like, "I don't want to just be a griefing player killer" bother me because that right there tells me you do indeed plan on being a griefer. Being an a**hole only occasionally doesn't really make your argument any better imho. You hit a great point with being corrupted and still fighting the bounty hunters, and should you choose to become corrupted and you survived waves of bounty hunters who choose to come at you and you survive then why not be rewarded with a cool hard to get title? As for the griefing stuff, you can get any vibe you get and I have no control of it but I feel like if you read everything vs scanning it as you admitted then you would see the scenario-based things presented that is not griefing. I have come up with several player choice-based options for a potential way to be a good player vs a bad player, a player vs player, and not a person killing an unwilling person. And yes this game has siege wars, and guild wars and I will take part in them but there is a difference that takes away from the individual experience. There could and is already some smaller-scale things and we are simply discussing the potential for more
SSRogue wrote: » But I digress........I tried skimming through all the posts and didn't see anyone mention the one thing that I feel being a corrupt player should be about......the challenge. If you can take on bounty hunters, and kill combatants while fighting at diminished fighting ability, that will be a bad a**ed player indeed and what you should be striving for as a 'bad guy', not ganking non-combatants. I will also say that terms like, "I don't want to just be a griefing player killer" bother me because that right there tells me you do indeed plan on being a griefer. Being an a**hole only occasionally doesn't really make your argument any better imho.
Yuyukoyay wrote: » The game is going to let you do anything you want, but if you pvp and be a menace for too long then you are going to pay dearly. You are going to permanently lose gear so just pick and choose. I don't agree spawn camping people should be a thing though. So that's what the systems are for. Just know that other players will probably make temporary mini armies to kill you if you piss them off.
