2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » I understand both of your points. I think that's fine, but at the same time, putting forth ideas that have a fundamental flaw, in the hopes a developer will address them.... to tell you about the flaw, when other people have already told you about the flaw... is meaningless. You both seem to agree that griefing is horrible, but fail to see that the only functional way to become a corrupt player is to be a griefer. I think you should start by addressing that part first. So a major concern amongst people is artificially gaming the system and killing ur main on a second account to scrub his corruption points. So someone will be allowed to do bad things and potentially dodge any social consequence.
Adlehyde wrote: » I understand both of your points. I think that's fine, but at the same time, putting forth ideas that have a fundamental flaw, in the hopes a developer will address them.... to tell you about the flaw, when other people have already told you about the flaw... is meaningless. You both seem to agree that griefing is horrible, but fail to see that the only functional way to become a corrupt player is to be a griefer. I think you should start by addressing that part first.
Adlehyde wrote: » You are placing yourself in a position, where no one can realistically have an opposing viewpoint. Either it is about how to make a solid bounty hunter system work within the scope of this game, in which case plenty of people have commented why it can't work, to which they have been disregarded. Or it is about how to make a solid bounty hunter system work outside the scope of this game, in which case it is off topic.
EpicJune wrote: » While I think having a more in-depth bounty system would be interesting, I think the problem is it would mean re-thinking other systems to make it work, and Steven has said he has a clear vision and doesn't want to start diverting from it, as that's what slowly leads to scope creep. Corruption, as it stands, is meant to be just a straight punishment to crack down on low-level camping, and the bounty is more just to give people a little reason to go after players who don't care about the risks. At this point, I think it's best to keep it simple and not complicate it further. Maybe in the future, it might be considered, depending on how things go.
SSRogue wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » Out of curiosity... how do you guys plan on becoming a corrupted player without griefing? You could be farming minerals and a guy pokes at you, tries invading your zone. He is the same level as you and is trying to bully you out of your area, so you decided to stand your ground and attack because you are not going to waste your time dealing with his/her antics. Maybe you get attacked by one guy and you attack him back because you don't want to lose xp and items anyways and you notice he has a friend over there coming to help and instead of letting him get the first spell on you, you go for him. Maybe someone wronged you in the past and caused your guild to disband because they were a spy from another guild and you see them and you seek revenge. This is not griefing, this is not randomly attacking low-level players, this is not taking advantage of an unwilling target that is innocent and just wants to pve.
Adlehyde wrote: » Out of curiosity... how do you guys plan on becoming a corrupted player without griefing?
Adlehyde wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Again, this thread falls under "discussion". I am not arguing with you. If you think that's what my post is an argument against you, you are looking at it too shortsightedly. I am saying the opposing viewpoints have something worth considering. "There cannot be any reward for corruption if the system is to function as a deterrent, which is the intent and full reason why it is so punishing. The devs do not want players to have any benefit from being corrupted" This is what lead to the back and forth replies in which you came into by leaving a comment directed to me. In this, the poster of the first reply said information we know about that game and didn't ask to be informed us as we are talking about systems outside the current in-game mechanics. That lead to your comments and where we are now. So after reading everything again, not once did I see the "conversation" bring about an opposing idea, I only saw the original commenter saying we were wrong for ignoring what the intent of the game currently is. Both of you have since said that you do not mind out conversation topic but neither of you have contributed to it, you only point out how what we are saying isn't supported within the current system which yet again we know... So please contribute to the actual topic, you do not have to agree with it but if you insist on commenting then at least continue the conversation. It can be something to point how it may not work and it can be something to try and make it work but it absolutely is not based on it working as the game currently is at this moment. This topic is "We need good bad guys, a plea for a solid bounty hunter system" This thread is not about griefing, it is not about the mechanics as they exist right this moment and it isn't trying to fit the idea of this thread into the current system. This is about expanding the current game and thinking of a way to fit a better bounty system in it, how do we do it, how could it work? You are placing yourself in a position, where no one can realistically have an opposing viewpoint. Either it is about how to make a solid bounty hunter system work within the scope of this game, in which case plenty of people have commented why it can't work, to which they have been disregarded. Or it is about how to make a solid bounty hunter system work outside the scope of this game, in which case it is off topic.
SSRogue wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Again, this thread falls under "discussion". I am not arguing with you. If you think that's what my post is an argument against you, you are looking at it too shortsightedly. I am saying the opposing viewpoints have something worth considering. "There cannot be any reward for corruption if the system is to function as a deterrent, which is the intent and full reason why it is so punishing. The devs do not want players to have any benefit from being corrupted" This is what lead to the back and forth replies in which you came into by leaving a comment directed to me. In this, the poster of the first reply said information we know about that game and didn't ask to be informed us as we are talking about systems outside the current in-game mechanics. That lead to your comments and where we are now. So after reading everything again, not once did I see the "conversation" bring about an opposing idea, I only saw the original commenter saying we were wrong for ignoring what the intent of the game currently is. Both of you have since said that you do not mind out conversation topic but neither of you have contributed to it, you only point out how what we are saying isn't supported within the current system which yet again we know... So please contribute to the actual topic, you do not have to agree with it but if you insist on commenting then at least continue the conversation. It can be something to point how it may not work and it can be something to try and make it work but it absolutely is not based on it working as the game currently is at this moment. This topic is "We need good bad guys, a plea for a solid bounty hunter system" This thread is not about griefing, it is not about the mechanics as they exist right this moment and it isn't trying to fit the idea of this thread into the current system. This is about expanding the current game and thinking of a way to fit a better bounty system in it, how do we do it, how could it work?
GodsThesis wrote: » Again, this thread falls under "discussion". I am not arguing with you. If you think that's what my post is an argument against you, you are looking at it too shortsightedly. I am saying the opposing viewpoints have something worth considering.
SSRogue wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » You are placing yourself in a position, where no one can realistically have an opposing viewpoint. Either it is about how to make a solid bounty hunter system work within the scope of this game, in which case plenty of people have commented why it can't work, to which they have been disregarded. Or it is about how to make a solid bounty hunter system work outside the scope of this game, in which case it is off topic. Negative, the current system lacks what the thread wants hence why the thread was created. I do not speak for the OP but the point of presenting a new idea is to flush it out and not be constantly reminded that it currently doesn't fit in the game as it currently exists. That is literally saying don't touch the hot thing because it is hot. You can present information as others have that point out what other changes need to happen and you can say this is too much effort and won't work and anything like that which directly opposed the topic and that is fine, but just restating the same "the game isn't designed for it bs" isn't having a conversation.
2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » GodsThesis wrote: » Again, this thread falls under "discussion". I am not arguing with you. If you think that's what my post is an argument against you, you are looking at it too shortsightedly. I am saying the opposing viewpoints have something worth considering. "There cannot be any reward for corruption if the system is to function as a deterrent, which is the intent and full reason why it is so punishing. The devs do not want players to have any benefit from being corrupted" This is what lead to the back and forth replies in which you came into by leaving a comment directed to me. In this, the poster of the first reply said information we know about that game and didn't ask to be informed us as we are talking about systems outside the current in-game mechanics. That lead to your comments and where we are now. So after reading everything again, not once did I see the "conversation" bring about an opposing idea, I only saw the original commenter saying we were wrong for ignoring what the intent of the game currently is. Both of you have since said that you do not mind out conversation topic but neither of you have contributed to it, you only point out how what we are saying isn't supported within the current system which yet again we know... So please contribute to the actual topic, you do not have to agree with it but if you insist on commenting then at least continue the conversation. It can be something to point how it may not work and it can be something to try and make it work but it absolutely is not based on it working as the game currently is at this moment. This topic is "We need good bad guys, a plea for a solid bounty hunter system" This thread is not about griefing, it is not about the mechanics as they exist right this moment and it isn't trying to fit the idea of this thread into the current system. This is about expanding the current game and thinking of a way to fit a better bounty system in it, how do we do it, how could it work? You are placing yourself in a position, where no one can realistically have an opposing viewpoint. Either it is about how to make a solid bounty hunter system work within the scope of this game, in which case plenty of people have commented why it can't work, to which they have been disregarded. Or it is about how to make a solid bounty hunter system work outside the scope of this game, in which case it is off topic. You have not been disregarded, solid points have been made on both side. This is all about conversation not ending conversation. Its not about being right or wrong, both sides will have opposing ideas on the topic perhaps even without a resolution and that's ok ^-^
Adlehyde wrote: » There's also zero incentive to operate as a red player in any way, and the only way to even become a red player is to be a griefer. Furthermore, people can kill a red player without consequences, so there is no motivation for anyone to become one other than genuinely being an asshole on purpose. The bounty hunter system as it exists right now, is intended to be an additional deterrent to being a red player. Suggesting that bounty hunters should also receive some sort of penalty will lessen that function.
SSRogue wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » There's also zero incentive to operate as a red player in any way, and the only way to even become a red player is to be a griefer. Furthermore, people can kill a red player without consequences, so there is no motivation for anyone to become one other than genuinely being an asshole on purpose. The bounty hunter system as it exists right now, is intended to be an additional deterrent to being a red player. Suggesting that bounty hunters should also receive some sort of penalty will lessen that function. This is your point of view as far as people being red only wanting to grief and as stated twice above you can become red without ever killing someone below you, or killing someone who didn't want to kill you first. See at the point you could say "the current system promotes becoming red but he act of killing another player and there are fewer situation that allow for a decent person to become red and more for guys wanting to be assholes" and then I would say yes you are right, there are fewer decent ways to become a bad guy but they do exists. then you say "I think your proposed system is flawed and unless someone comes up with other ways to become corrupted or maybe a different type of corruption then it cant work" and then I say you are right and we have suggested a few things like religious factions or thieves guild or literally letting you sign up to just be a ba guy by granting you a corruption status by completing a questline. That is a conversation, not focusing on things as they are currently and assuming we are unaware of this.
Adlehyde wrote: » In every one of these instances, no one can gain corruption unless you're griefing. All parties involved become purple players based on the assumed scenario of each example you provide. If someone becomes a red player out of it, it's because they were griefing. If you are farming minerals and a guy pokes you, and then you attack, then you are both purple. If he didn't actually attack you though, but you attacked him to drive him away from your resources, and he never fights back, but you kill him, or chase him down if he runs away and kill him, then you'll turn red, but you did it by griefing.
Adlehyde wrote: » If you get attacked by a guy and you attack back because you don't want to lose XP, everyone is purple. If his friend is coming to help and you attack him first, presumably since he's coming to help he's not going to stand there, everyone is purple. If he doesn't fight back and you kill him anyway and become red, you were griefing.
Adlehyde wrote: » Someone wronged you and you want revenge so you attack., If he fights back, everyone is purple. If he doesn't, is afk, or is so much lower level that you kill him before he knows what's going on, and you become a red player due to it... you've gotten your revenge, but you did it by being a griefer.
SSRogue wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » In every one of these instances, no one can gain corruption unless you're griefing. All parties involved become purple players based on the assumed scenario of each example you provide. If someone becomes a red player out of it, it's because they were griefing. If you are farming minerals and a guy pokes you, and then you attack, then you are both purple. If he didn't actually attack you though, but you attacked him to drive him away from your resources, and he never fights back, but you kill him, or chase him down if he runs away and kill him, then you'll turn red, but you did it by griefing. You assume this guy didn't come right back and do it again? or lie to his friends and say you started it come help me and you are not one to back down so you end up fighting more and eventually become red? Adlehyde wrote: » If you get attacked by a guy and you attack back because you don't want to lose XP, everyone is purple. If his friend is coming to help and you attack him first, presumably since he's coming to help he's not going to stand there, everyone is purple. If he doesn't fight back and you kill him anyway and become red, you were griefing. I agree assuming goes both ways and this is a valid potential point of argument that you could in fact grief someone but that secondary guy who is in his guild and comes to help him decides to not attack because he sees you noticing him first and decides to just annoy you is not an innocent person and killing him does corrupt you but is not griefing. He isn't some innocent bystander just trying to grind materials. Adlehyde wrote: » Someone wronged you and you want revenge so you attack., If he fights back, everyone is purple. If he doesn't, is afk, or is so much lower level that you kill him before he knows what's going on, and you become a red player due to it... you've gotten your revenge, but you did it by being a griefer. In this situation, I never stated he was a lower level than me because I see no fun or gain in killing a lower-level person, this is not my cup of tea. This guy is my level and a huge manipulative guild spy (legal bad guy) and I caught him off guard while he was farming some monster. I killed him because of his past transgressions and yes again this by definition is pk'ing but in this circumstance, he was no innocent player being taken advantage of. He was out by himself, he made enemies and one caught him. He decided to not fight back because he either died too fast or he chose to let you take the corruption, but this does not make you a griefer.
Adlehyde wrote: » Furthermore, all the examples you give in this post are things that go against the vision for the game, and stating that they go against the vision for the game must be considered a valid reason to reject them.
SSRogue wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » Furthermore, all the examples you give in this post are things that go against the vision for the game, and stating that they go against the vision for the game must be considered a valid reason to reject them. As it currently stands, yes you are right. We have acknowledged it though and you aren't bringing anything new to the topic by stating it, so it just seems like arguing not conversation. As stated, we know the current system and are thinking of ways to make it fit not ways on the system as it is at the moment, because we know. Just in case you think we don't know, I assure you we do. And I am sure you do not know the future and you are not Steven so please do not speak for him in the future after the game has been out and evolved. none of us can and we shouldn't, but we can hypothesize of what future new system could be and that is the point of this.
Adlehyde wrote: » Deciding that these individuals in your opinion are not innocent bystanders is a fair enough assumption, but it doesn't change the fact that killing them while green is not a necessary result, and would obviously not be a result due to intent. In none of these exmaples would you think the aggressor goes "Oooh I can finally become red!" It's not like the person was seeking after the corruption, and there's a fair argument to be made from an outside observer that killing these individuals could still be constituted as griefing.
Adlehyde wrote: » The point being here, that the desire to be a corrupt player does not play into these examples still, and being a red player is not rewarded if you go down that route because the vision of the game does not want it to be.
Adlehyde wrote: » Your other post suggesting like a thieve's guild for people to have another avenue of gaining corruption is a prime example that you are attempting to come up with ways to mold the vision of the game around your idea instead of molding your idea to fit the vision of the game.
Adlehyde wrote: » I do not have any intention of dissuading you from hypothesizing of what future new systems could be, but I do highly recommend you attempt to fit the system idea into the scope of the game.
SSRogue wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » Deciding that these individuals in your opinion are not innocent bystanders is a fair enough assumption, but it doesn't change the fact that killing them while green is not a necessary result, and would obviously not be a result due to intent. In none of these exmaples would you think the aggressor goes "Oooh I can finally become red!" It's not like the person was seeking after the corruption, and there's a fair argument to be made from an outside observer that killing these individuals could still be constituted as griefing. To an outside observer, yes, but in this situation right now this is between you and I and I am giving you all the information you require to understand that the corrupted player did not grief and yet he still becomes red. It may be very unlikely but it can happen and it is allowed as the game stands so if the guy becomes red without being a griefer then it can stand he simply chooses to stay red by only attacking other purples and reds and bounty hunters trying to kill him and all the while NEVER being a dick to an innocent player in this particular situation. So is this representing the majority of the game? NOPE! Is it worth reworking the system to take into consideration this unique scenario? NOPE! Does it allow for good bad guys though? YES! Am I asking for lower penalities? NOPE! Am I asking for more fun for reds vs bounty hunters (who chose to hunt you for reward)? YUP! Adlehyde wrote: » The point being here, that the desire to be a corrupt player does not play into these examples still, and being a red player is not rewarded if you go down that route because the vision of the game does not want it to be. Addressed above Adlehyde wrote: » Your other post suggesting like a thieve's guild for people to have another avenue of gaining corruption is a prime example that you are attempting to come up with ways to mold the vision of the game around your idea instead of molding your idea to fit the vision of the game. They are already working on a thieves guild, it is something currently under development. We have little to no information besides that the idea is being developed. So... is their harm in speculation? Do I need permission to theorize on what it could be like? Can I imagine what a further-developed system could be like that does let players become red in an evil guild and fight blue players who sign up to be Justice Guards for the good guys and let us fight? I don't see how we are harming innocent players, we aren't griefing? The system in place already makes the life of a red hard, so why would we waste time griefing when there is nothing gained? Ahh... but this new hypothetical system I could get a title from defeating some Justice Guards and that is fun and I want that title.
SSRogue wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » I do not have any intention of dissuading you from hypothesizing of what future new systems could be, but I do highly recommend you attempt to fit the system idea into the scope of the game. I understand your viewpoint and I respect your opinion. I do believe it is the intent of this tread to have a conversation on hypothetical systems that currently do not exist but I do personally appreciate your input. I apologize you spent so much time on a thread about hypothetical things that you do not even want to discuss in the first place. This right here @Adlehyde is how progress is made and how the entire thing between you and I should have gone. You state your thoughts and we acknowledge them and move on. Thank you sir/ma'am and I hope you find a thread that is less hypothetical and more based on the game as it is because you have a lot to say on things as they are and you will really benefit that thread.
Adlehyde wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » Deciding that these individuals in your opinion are not innocent bystanders is a fair enough assumption, but it doesn't change the fact that killing them while green is not a necessary result, and would obviously not be a result due to intent. In none of these exmaples would you think the aggressor goes "Oooh I can finally become red!" It's not like the person was seeking after the corruption, and there's a fair argument to be made from an outside observer that killing these individuals could still be constituted as griefing. To an outside observer, yes, but in this situation right now this is between you and I and I am giving you all the information you require to understand that the corrupted player did not grief and yet he still becomes red. It may be very unlikely but it can happen and it is allowed as the game stands so if the guy becomes red without being a griefer then it can stand he simply chooses to stay red by only attacking other purples and reds and bounty hunters trying to kill him and all the while NEVER being a dick to an innocent player in this particular situation. So is this representing the majority of the game? NOPE! Is it worth reworking the system to take into consideration this unique scenario? NOPE! Does it allow for good bad guys though? YES! Am I asking for lower penalities? NOPE! Am I asking for more fun for reds vs bounty hunters (who chose to hunt you for reward)? YUP! Adlehyde wrote: » The point being here, that the desire to be a corrupt player does not play into these examples still, and being a red player is not rewarded if you go down that route because the vision of the game does not want it to be. Addressed above Adlehyde wrote: » Your other post suggesting like a thieve's guild for people to have another avenue of gaining corruption is a prime example that you are attempting to come up with ways to mold the vision of the game around your idea instead of molding your idea to fit the vision of the game. They are already working on a thieves guild, it is something currently under development. We have little to no information besides that the idea is being developed. So... is their harm in speculation? Do I need permission to theorize on what it could be like? Can I imagine what a further-developed system could be like that does let players become red in an evil guild and fight blue players who sign up to be Justice Guards for the good guys and let us fight? I don't see how we are harming innocent players, we aren't griefing? The system in place already makes the life of a red hard, so why would we waste time griefing when there is nothing gained? Ahh... but this new hypothetical system I could get a title from defeating some Justice Guards and that is fun and I want that title. Yes, I fully understand that, but I have to point out just this one part."Am I asking for more fun for reds vs bounty hunters (who chose to hunt you for reward)? YUP! " I fully understand that this is the entire corps of what you're talking about right? But at it's nature, this requires a red player to have a reason to have fun AS a red player. This one particular element is in direct contract of the very existence of being a red player. It would be better to promote methods of this interaction as a purple player than as a red player, since we already know that there is zero design desire for any player to "want" to be a red player. It would be better to argue an addition to the bounty system that includes purple players that have defeated many other purple players instead of arguing, essentially adding "fun" for the red player. No red player is ever intended to have fun. It is not intended to function the same way pirates in archeage functioned, where there was a valid reason within the game system for a player to desire to become one.
2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » SSRogue wrote: » Adlehyde wrote: » Deciding that these individuals in your opinion are not innocent bystanders is a fair enough assumption, but it doesn't change the fact that killing them while green is not a necessary result, and would obviously not be a result due to intent. In none of these exmaples would you think the aggressor goes "Oooh I can finally become red!" It's not like the person was seeking after the corruption, and there's a fair argument to be made from an outside observer that killing these individuals could still be constituted as griefing. To an outside observer, yes, but in this situation right now this is between you and I and I am giving you all the information you require to understand that the corrupted player did not grief and yet he still becomes red. It may be very unlikely but it can happen and it is allowed as the game stands so if the guy becomes red without being a griefer then it can stand he simply chooses to stay red by only attacking other purples and reds and bounty hunters trying to kill him and all the while NEVER being a dick to an innocent player in this particular situation. So is this representing the majority of the game? NOPE! Is it worth reworking the system to take into consideration this unique scenario? NOPE! Does it allow for good bad guys though? YES! Am I asking for lower penalities? NOPE! Am I asking for more fun for reds vs bounty hunters (who chose to hunt you for reward)? YUP! Adlehyde wrote: » The point being here, that the desire to be a corrupt player does not play into these examples still, and being a red player is not rewarded if you go down that route because the vision of the game does not want it to be. Addressed above Adlehyde wrote: » Your other post suggesting like a thieve's guild for people to have another avenue of gaining corruption is a prime example that you are attempting to come up with ways to mold the vision of the game around your idea instead of molding your idea to fit the vision of the game. They are already working on a thieves guild, it is something currently under development. We have little to no information besides that the idea is being developed. So... is their harm in speculation? Do I need permission to theorize on what it could be like? Can I imagine what a further-developed system could be like that does let players become red in an evil guild and fight blue players who sign up to be Justice Guards for the good guys and let us fight? I don't see how we are harming innocent players, we aren't griefing? The system in place already makes the life of a red hard, so why would we waste time griefing when there is nothing gained? Ahh... but this new hypothetical system I could get a title from defeating some Justice Guards and that is fun and I want that title. Yes, I fully understand that, but I have to point out just this one part."Am I asking for more fun for reds vs bounty hunters (who chose to hunt you for reward)? YUP! " I fully understand that this is the entire corps of what you're talking about right? But at it's nature, this requires a red player to have a reason to have fun AS a red player. This one particular element is in direct contract of the very existence of being a red player. It would be better to promote methods of this interaction as a purple player than as a red player, since we already know that there is zero design desire for any player to "want" to be a red player. It would be better to argue an addition to the bounty system that includes purple players that have defeated many other purple players instead of arguing, essentially adding "fun" for the red player. No red player is ever intended to have fun. It is not intended to function the same way pirates in archeage functioned, where there was a valid reason within the game system for a player to desire to become one. i have a feeling we are closer to similar ideas than we think due in part to semantics, "fun" some people's idea of fun is being hunted by a server cause he's been bad, I don't think that he is being "rewarded" for this behavior because he's now on people's shit list and he can drop his gear. Totally agree however that Corrupted should not be a desirable lifestyle, but maybe a liveable one?
