Orlando wrote: » Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » RahkstarRPG wrote: » Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it. Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded. Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with. 1. You don't get corrupted. 2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction. 3. You stop them from progressing. 4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something? I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling. Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful. Guild Halls and Guild Fortresses will have something to do with wars. Maybe sieging them, maybe burning them down (I remember blowing up enemy bases in SWG, so satisfying). But there will be a special PvP mode, that’s what a guild war will be. Thats cool, but won't you be able to war a guild outside of that pvp mode?
Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » RahkstarRPG wrote: » Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it. Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded. Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with. 1. You don't get corrupted. 2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction. 3. You stop them from progressing. 4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something? I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling. Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful. Guild Halls and Guild Fortresses will have something to do with wars. Maybe sieging them, maybe burning them down (I remember blowing up enemy bases in SWG, so satisfying). But there will be a special PvP mode, that’s what a guild war will be.
Orlando wrote: » Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » RahkstarRPG wrote: » Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it. Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded. Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with. 1. You don't get corrupted. 2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction. 3. You stop them from progressing. 4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something? I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling. Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful.
Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » RahkstarRPG wrote: » Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it. Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded. Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with. 1. You don't get corrupted. 2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction. 3. You stop them from progressing. 4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something? I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling.
Orlando wrote: » RahkstarRPG wrote: » Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it. Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded. Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with. 1. You don't get corrupted. 2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction. 3. You stop them from progressing. 4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
RahkstarRPG wrote: » Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it. Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded.
Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » RahkstarRPG wrote: » Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it. Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded. Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with. 1. You don't get corrupted. 2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction. 3. You stop them from progressing. 4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something? I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling. Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful. Guild Halls and Guild Fortresses will have something to do with wars. Maybe sieging them, maybe burning them down (I remember blowing up enemy bases in SWG, so satisfying). But there will be a special PvP mode, that’s what a guild war will be. Thats cool, but won't you be able to war a guild outside of that pvp mode? “War” isn’t a verb so I’m not sure what you are asking. There will be actual wars a guild can declare on another guild, actually multiple guilds can be involved. I don’t know what context you mean with your question.
Orlando wrote: » Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » Atama wrote: » Orlando wrote: » RahkstarRPG wrote: » Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it. Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded. Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with. 1. You don't get corrupted. 2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction. 3. You stop them from progressing. 4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something? I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling. Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful. Guild Halls and Guild Fortresses will have something to do with wars. Maybe sieging them, maybe burning them down (I remember blowing up enemy bases in SWG, so satisfying). But there will be a special PvP mode, that’s what a guild war will be. Thats cool, but won't you be able to war a guild outside of that pvp mode? “War” isn’t a verb so I’m not sure what you are asking. There will be actual wars a guild can declare on another guild, actually multiple guilds can be involved. I don’t know what context you mean with your question. Your guild declares war on another guild by ingame guild war declaration panel. If the guild accepts the war, you can kill any members of that guild without going red.
SSRogue wrote: » Flagg wrote: » Also, back to the OP's point. Some players really love that red flag, being known as a bad-azz that you should run from. Well in this game, you'll be a bad azz with a stick vs a carebear with a howitzer. I don't see the fear factor there. I'm in no way saying that i disapprove of the design choice, I actually think it's pretty cool and unique to this game. In a way, I appreciate it. I think it does, however take away any enjoyment from the criminal characters and takes it beyond harsh to just immoral. Like taking every person ever accused of a crime and sticking a bomb implant in their head. You could say it's just not.. realistic. Having a big red name and bounty hunters I can dig. That adds an element of danger. The weakening element, I think is taking it a bit far. There's no even play field now. Not only do you risk having the Mounties after you, en-mass to complete a quest, but you're handcuffed and chained to boot, with a orange outfit. I think the big hang-up here are the people laser-focused on the terms. You can say corruption but let's just say bad guy. So I become bad by a completely fair means, NOT by being a dick player-killing lowbies or griefing or anything like that. So I am a bad guy now, I get to show off that I am indeed that type of player that won't hesitate to defend myself and I go for the kills, but now what? There is so much potential for the bounty system to be fun on top of what is serves currently. There have been some dame good ideas above. I just want more open discussion for more things bad guys can do to cause that risk-reward for the good guys. The corruption system can work as a passive deterrent for the griefers and with a little tweaking, there could be a secondary system to allow the grey area for good bad guys lol.
Flagg wrote: » Also, back to the OP's point. Some players really love that red flag, being known as a bad-azz that you should run from. Well in this game, you'll be a bad azz with a stick vs a carebear with a howitzer. I don't see the fear factor there. I'm in no way saying that i disapprove of the design choice, I actually think it's pretty cool and unique to this game. In a way, I appreciate it. I think it does, however take away any enjoyment from the criminal characters and takes it beyond harsh to just immoral. Like taking every person ever accused of a crime and sticking a bomb implant in their head. You could say it's just not.. realistic. Having a big red name and bounty hunters I can dig. That adds an element of danger. The weakening element, I think is taking it a bit far. There's no even play field now. Not only do you risk having the Mounties after you, en-mass to complete a quest, but you're handcuffed and chained to boot, with a orange outfit.
SSRogue wrote: » Caravan is an in-game example of greedy good guys taking the risks and us bad guys being there as the repercussion.
Beck Altarr wrote: » You are 100% wrong in this statement. The Caravan is not about being Greedy. It's a necessity. If you can only carry X amount of goods, say 100, and you have to travel some distances to get Y Goods, then it's not very efficient and would actually kill the game to have players spend all their time going from point A to B. You can get a Mule out, which will allow you to carry 1000 of X goods, plus the 100 you can carry and it takes some risk as you can have your Mule killed and potentially lose most of that stuff. Yes, there are some good and fun ideas, most of them are mine, on ways to let you play a bad guy and still make PKing for no reason punishing. I think your way of stating things is making it very clear to all of us that even if those ideas were a reality in the game, you would still seek to Pk and grief other players which doesn't make you a bad guy. It makes you a A-Hole if that is what you actually plan to do.
raylegh wrote: » I had an idea while reading your post. Perhaps there could be an unique and limited corrupted guild or faction where a FEW limited amount of players who achieved something (even using rng) or whatever, can be invited to join and do "bad things" without being so penalized. That would be really interesting and because it being very limited wouldn't be so annoying for many players as "all people having carte blanche to do whatever they want". Adding an interesting layer of concern without beeing too much and at the same time allowing bad minded players to have chance if they try, but not all of them.
Adaon wrote: » I'm surprised this thread is still going on haha, I don't think this idea - will be handled better than UO's system, and if that's not the route they're going, is what it is. Lifestyle(with consequences) <- better in my view vs punishment <- what the system actually is presently. The problem with UO's style of pvp in this kind of game world, variable node progression - cities that aren't static, it'd be hard to have dedicated pvp friendly areas, and it'd be limiting to have nodes where corrupted players couldn't go, although it could be up to the mayor/node owners to decide if they allowed "corrupted players"I guess, in any event, good luck with the continued thread haha was just checking back in.
ShroudedFox wrote: » If there was an opposing faction to bounty hunters such as bandits who have events to raid villages, disrupt supply chains, kidnap rich NPC nobles, etc. You make people who are playing in these events targets for bounty hunters. This way you can have a villain type role that isn't related to greifing and have an incentive for more random pvp happening.
ShroudedFox wrote: » religious faction wars, so that say a religion worships corruption (the in game lore corruption not player corruption) and wants to spread it you can have players spread corruption by placing totems in the area and patrons of the opposing religion could have quests to destroy the totems. NPC supply routes with ships on the ocean so that the pirates life can be an option for players.
ShroudedFox wrote: » I really support the notion of opposing factions partaking events to control objectives that give their members some sort of benefit. Say like the thieves guild wants to have a hideout at a port, but that would effect the merchants guild in that port so they have a quest to try and stop that happening.
ShroudedFox wrote: » I guess my point is that people playing villain roles should have an outlet that doesn't relate to greifing other players and promotes consensual pvp and has some sort of consequence.
