SSRogue wrote: » So your entire point of view on how I and the select others are just fantasizing on things that will never happen is honestly a bit of a pompous assumption. I am not speaking on behalf of PK GRIEFING. Pvp or player vs player is simply anything BUT player vs ai in this conversation topic and this game as stated above does have mechanics and the potential for more. This game is not finished and will have many years to adapt and change and build upon itself and some of us are enjoying talking about that potential from the point of view of being a bad guy.
2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » Potentially even giving non PvP players a buff for how long they haven't flagged for PvP, the longer ur not flagged the higher the punishment for ur aggressor, PvP players that want some dangerous fun should be allowed and safety for my pve bros should be allowed, if there is a way to make a perfect system, I have no doubt Steven will find it.
IllusionTokomi wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » So, as you can see, it is entirely possible to get what you're asking for, except the part where you get to grief with no penalties. See it is that right there that concerns me. I can say that I do not wish to promote the killing of an unwilling participant and you simply say that I do. So there is nothing to be discussed, I am wrong and you are right, correct? You are not me and are not in my head, have not played alongside me in other games, so you only base this off your assumptions which is fair due to the inability to unequivocally prove otherwise, but you could choose to take me for my word and greet me as an honorable gamer who wants to see more player vs player being flushed out because that is what I enjoy. I should not be ashamed because I enjoy player vs player just as a person should not be looked down upon for only wanting pve and nothing else. This game does have systems that promote pvp, and as you stated in your reply they are working on more systems to add more which is very awesome and I didn't know about and will be looking into so thank you. Now am I greedy for wanting more? Yes! Can you blame me? No! This game isn't finished and the devs actively read the forums and comment on streams about the forms and what is the harm in trying to think of new ideas? Now if you do not like our ideas then that is fine, you aren't the dev that makes the decision to bring it up in a meeting to Steven, however, your opposing voice is needed for reflection on ideas so they can be refined. You, good Sir, have at least given some back and forth and have engaged in conversation unlike a few anti-pvp posters above. I appreciate this very much! Now as for the pk thing, is being a bad guy the simple act of killing another player either as a willing or unwilling participant? No! Will some bad things included killing people? Yes! Is there a way to become corrupted and as a corrupted player, play the game in such frantic state to openly defend yourself from legal pvp (bounty hunters) and any other person who can only attack you and it be fun? Yes! If that person survives long enough and does some amazing hard to do things and survives a timer as part of an initiation into a npc guild to earn a reward like a title or shrouded cloak? Why not? You are not ruining the game experience if you are taking part in fighting bounty hunters or other casual pvpers who only attack you because you are now corrupted. Maybe the game should penalize you more if you continue killing more unwilling participants.. oh wait you are penalized more by becoming more corrupted, thus making it impossible to finish your questline to be accepted into this npc guild. There is room to discuss a system, a system that does not promote killing unwilling participants and yet still let you be a bad guy killer and reward you. Is it easily explainable? I most certainly obviously don't have the answer but someone reading this might and they can comment and this can grow into something that might make it into the game. Maybe that entire thing I just said will never work, well then what is another player vs player system we can think of? This is why forums are a thing, we discuss topics that interest us. We find threads we enjoy and contribute to them. We do not need bashing and people putting others down because you aren't interested in what they are saying, that leads to virtual pissing contest and people being backed into a corner and trying to defend their statements. My thread is for people wanting to think of ways to have fun being the bad guy for people who choose to put themselves into a situation where they chose to pick a reward at a risk and that risk is us bad guys. My ideas have developed and changed from my initial post because I have been influenced by the other posters and I myself have had time to refine my ideas and better voice my ideas by expressing more words for you to read. I love being a bad guy in games, but I find no personal joy from spawn camping or kill someone afk or who is unwilling. Now catching someone off guard in a open zone is fun, the ability to pickpocket at risk of being personally flagged to that individual for a short time is fun, joining a religion that paints a target on your back to to a rival is fun, being hired to snuff out enemy npc's and be flagged in a city walls and having to fight your way out is fun. This game has some things much like the caravan system where players can choose to be extra greedy and put themselves at risk, I just want to think of other smaller-scale ways to be a bad guy legally and yes be rewarded for it, without running the game for anyone who isn't participating.
SSRogue wrote: » So, as you can see, it is entirely possible to get what you're asking for, except the part where you get to grief with no penalties.
2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » Exactly, we're in good hands
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.
SSRogue wrote: » You may have scanned over some posts but you clearly have not read everything. I respect your reply but to be an actual voice in this conversation then please read up on everything
grisu wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » You may have scanned over some posts but you clearly have not read everything. I respect your reply but to be an actual voice in this conversation then please read up on everything I mean I'm just here to see how much you trip up with your story which you do alot. How can you mess up so bad and actually believe people don't see it? First you directly respond to me with caravans and now lecturing oyu on how wrong it is, somehow I don't have the full picture. Have fun justifying being a negative influence.
SSRogue wrote: » 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. I have mentioned UO a few times but I completely understand that will NEVER happen in here if you read everything in this evolving thread you'll see we are trying to think of new ways using the mechanics of the game already in-game, but thank you for your reply and yellow fellow UO player!
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.
Kohl wrote: » I just don't understand Intrepids philosophy on PvP. If the corruption system is set up in place to deter players from killing other players unjustifiably, then what use is allowing PvP at all? It doesn't only deter players from killing low level players, it also deters players from killing other players, ANY player in the open world. And if the entire PvP is revolving around flagging systems, then it's no different from a PvE game. The caravans feel like a mini-game in which you're allowed to kill other players. I'm still hopeful that one day I'll enter a guild that's dedicated to flagging every other guild for war, so we'll be able to go around the whole corruption bs that's dampening the skills until you can't fight at all. lol.
Kneczhevo wrote: » When I read the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about being an assassin or mercenary, perhaps a full fledged red guild that hires itself to do caravan raiding or node sieging. As typical, it turned into a justified griefing thread. I get griefing, I've done it. But, in all reality, griefing only ruins a community and game. Please go back to kicking kittens and beating up third graders.
Adaon wrote: » Yeah by no means am I advocating for UO's pvp system, - although I honestly think the least amount of griefing I've ever seen in a game is UO - where players were free to do anything they wanted, and there were a lot of upsides to killing people, and risks associated, versus a game like WoW - where people are very tightly constrained, but because of the lack of choice due to factions - it just ends up being in "many cases" see horde - > kill horde. Players in an FFA setting tend to sort themselves, the more civilized people tend to band together, or that was at least my experience there, granted UO did take an easy way out to a degree with Trammel and Felucca and segregating things, but giving more rewards and different zones to Felucca certainly was a good thing. UO was just the closest thing I could relate to a similar pvp system where being a murderer was a lifestyle - with penalties, but also still a functional choice, and I wasn't thinking this system was aiming to be "that" specifically. The PVP system is on a long list of things I think that game did phenomenally that very few if any games have even tried to scratch the surface of since then. In game player housing/real estate market, entirely player driven economies, huge emphasis on crafting as an actual point of power/reknown and meaningful game additives, rather than something like WoW where it's just supplemental/minor bonus, and insignificant after awhile. To the developers credit here, I've heard a lot of good things in regards to some of those subjects from the AMA and other stuff I've listened to, so, hopefully they deliver on the ambition As far as suggestions for the pvp system, I think until I actually got a chance to play, it'd be difficult to give meaningful feedback. Either way, hopefully everyone has a productive dialogue .
Adaon wrote: » To the developers credit here, I've heard a lot of good things in regards to some of those subjects from the AMA and other stuff I've listened to, so, hopefully they deliver on the ambition As far as suggestions for the pvp system, I think until I actually got a chance to play, it'd be difficult to give meaningful feedback. Either way, hopefully everyone has a productive dialogue .
SSRogue wrote: » Adaon wrote: » To the developers credit here, I've heard a lot of good things in regards to some of those subjects from the AMA and other stuff I've listened to, so, hopefully they deliver on the ambition As far as suggestions for the pvp system, I think until I actually got a chance to play, it'd be difficult to give meaningful feedback. Either way, hopefully everyone has a productive dialogue . We are just looking for a good conversation about things we would like to see and not be told that it doesn't fit the game's intent over and over. Just some ideas about ways to be bad that are not promoting griefing or unfair pk'ing on any kind. I think some good things have come up if you actually read through.
Kohl wrote: » I'm still hopeful that one day I'll enter a guild that's dedicated to flagging every other guild for war, so we'll be able to go around the whole corruption bs that's dampening the skills until you can't fight at all. lol.
SSRogue wrote: » FuryBladeborne wrote: » Intreprid wants to allow players to attack others that they have a problem with. That is it. There is a potential reward in crafting material drops from attacking non-combatants, but the reward does not go farther than that unless you count the benefit of getting additional PVP against bounty hunters without gaining corruption. Thank you for your feedback good sir but again I state that this thread isn't completely focused on player killing. Yes part of doing bad guy things is killing people and it is allowed and you are punished for it and it would be cool for players who constantly play this game with corruption to have some sort of acknowledgment if you are going out of your way to do so as part of a quest to prove how much of a bad guy your character is that leads towards something AND the potential for having a guild that perhaps does fight bounty hunters as a good vs bad in the eyes of society is fun but again good will always win do to corruption and that is fine but there are other things that make you a bad guy. Intreprid is giving us the caravan system that allows some level of being a bad guy and that is awesome but.. . obviously bad guys want more right? So I can only hope a dev comes across this with more detailed information on some long term mechanics or a system that player may partake in that can reward that path to counterbalance the good guys. I will also state one more time, I am not asking to be rewarded strictly for being a player killer.
FuryBladeborne wrote: » Intreprid wants to allow players to attack others that they have a problem with. That is it. There is a potential reward in crafting material drops from attacking non-combatants, but the reward does not go farther than that unless you count the benefit of getting additional PVP against bounty hunters without gaining corruption.
