Adlehyde wrote: » 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? I think the better route is thinking of a system that can fit the bill which would feasibly be adding into the game on it's own and not be related to corruption. So I'll change gears here, since pointing out why the corruption system cannot have two separate functions simultaneously seems to fall on deaf ears. The corruption element is by design a punishment. Since any player can always attack any other player, there needs to be a very strong system to prevent players from wantonly killing anyone they see. That's the corruption system. No player should ever desire to be red. All players, even those that want to be the bad guy should see the corruption and go, "yeah I don't want that." The bounty hunter system as it has currently been explained is an enforcement system to ensure that not only does the red player actually receive their punishment, but that they can't stay red for long. So for a bounty hunter system, which obviously sounds like a fun system on the surface, to actually BE a fun system, instead of just an enforcer, it needs to encompass acts that players will naturally want to do, that will only leave them purple instead of red. Perhaps the thieves guild has missions to steal from caravans, perhaps someone who duels a lot of people in general also gets a bounty of some sort. There are plenty of things that could be taken into consideration as potential additions to the game that don't revolve cannibalizing a system designed with the express intent to punish a player.
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?
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.
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.
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.
if I can't stay red long, I don't think there's a point to bounty hunt me, I'll work to scrub my points before u can get to me and then do bad stuff again when I'm safe too. My fear is criminals will be criminals as much as they can without punishment then get rid of points and do it again. People staying red means u know they are a criminal and u know they will be punished.
2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » If corruption points are just a threshold that I musnt go over, I will do bad things and stay under that bar, I will act corrupt and I will get away with it. In this case you have a corrupt green walking amongst u and the only way u know is by name and I don't know how many names people can keep track of, if they're red u don't need to keep track. They're red. Just a criminal trying to help the good guys don't mind me
Caeryl wrote: » 2for4Sausag3ggMcMuff wrote: » If corruption points are just a threshold that I musnt go over, I will do bad things and stay under that bar, I will act corrupt and I will get away with it. In this case you have a corrupt green walking amongst u and the only way u know is by name and I don't know how many names people can keep track of, if they're red u don't need to keep track. They're red. Just a criminal trying to help the good guys don't mind me Corruption count is basically just a record of total PKs against greens. It has an effect on how fast you gain corruption (more history of PKs the faster you rack up corruption) but it’s not the same as your current corruption levels, which is what actually affects your debuffs.
Adlehyde wrote: » 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.
