the bounty hunter system wont work as intended

ill keep this short.. so basically as to my understanding bounty hunters can track corrupted players and when tehy fight the corrupted player doesnt have the reductions in abilities.. the idea being to put the fight on equal footing.. as a red.. i like this idea.. i think it adds another level of difficulty and its a good plan that adds the ability for anti pk guilds.. kudos.. the problem is whats gonna happen will be one bounty hunter and x ammt of his friends.. if the corruption debuffs only disable vs the bounty hunter then not only is the red out numbered but hes also fighting at a disadvantage on top of it.. which i think is a bit extreme and not in the spirit of the system.. i would recommend adding an aoe effect to bounty hunters that disables the corruption debuff within the area, otherwise the system wont work as intended... as it stands corrupted players will be walking loot bags..so theres gonna be a lot of incentive to hunt them down and take their stuff

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

[
Intrepid have stated that they have no intention of introducing any positives to gaining corruption.

Additionally, they have said that if you gain corruption, your world has changed - it is not going to be a very benefitial place to be (their exact words).

A system that has no benefits and many negatives, that is designed to incentivize players to restrict undesired behavior - that sounds to me like punishment.

do you... not know what you get when you kill a non-combatant?

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

[
Intrepid have stated that they have no intention of introducing any positives to gaining corruption.

Additionally, they have said that if you gain corruption, your world has changed - it is not going to be a very benefitial place to be (their exact words).

A system that has no benefits and many negatives, that is designed to incentivize players to restrict undesired behavior - that sounds to me like punishment.

do you... not know what you get when you kill a non-combatant?

I didn't say there was no reason to kill other players - combatant or non-combatant - I said there was no upside to corruption.

Potentially gaining raw materials and/or certificates is the upside of killing players if they refuse to fight back - corruption is the punishment.

Themata

Gankez wrote: »

ofc after thinking about it a bit more.. theres no reason that a bounty hunter couldnt just tell his friends over voip where to go.. could even screenshare his map and with multiple monitors any non bounty hunter in his discord would know where to go. soo.. ya the stat nerfing is a stupid idea.. no way around it..nm scrap the whole idea.. the aura is a waste of time/coding

Not necessarily, you would just need to incentivise the bounty hunter actually being present. One way would be to have the tracking increase in accuracy the closer they got. Without going themselves their screen sniping friends only get a large vague location. If they move into the circle, they are given smaller and smaller circles.

perseus01

I just want to add my 2 cents whilst we're here on the subject. Recently in some youtube content, people aren't grasping the SIZE of this game just yet. The Bounty Hunter system must be realistic in terms of location, so anyone in the immediate area who is hostile will be subject to being hunted for a reward from that outpost.
I assume this will be a very profitable system later for players who acquire it. Players that want to craft and process are going to need bodyguards who can indefinitely make an earning. From what I take away from it, it looks like there will actually be constant war in some areas for larger guilds. That makes me really happy!

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

I didn't say there was no reason to kill other players - combatant or non-combatant - I said there was no upside to corruption.

Potentially gaining raw materials and/or certificates is the upside of killing players if they refuse to fight back - corruption is the punishment.

... This is just dancing around the actual content of what corruption is for. You gain corruption by killing no-combatant players which drop more loot than a combatant player. Meaning In the process of gaining corruption you also gain more loot from your victims.

It is a risk/reward system that eventually stops rewarding you because what you are doing is bad behavior. If it was purely a punishment then non-combatants would not drop extra loot.

Songcaller

Extra loot dropped by non combatants is the punishment for non combatants not a gift to the corrupted.

In a game there is no reason not to PvP. Its not like you will die in real life if you die in game.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I didn't say there was no reason to kill other players - combatant or non-combatant - I said there was no upside to corruption.

Potentially gaining raw materials and/or certificates is the upside of killing players if they refuse to fight back - corruption is the punishment.

... This is just dancing around the actual content of what corruption is for. You gain corruption by killing no-combatant players which drop more loot than a combatant player. Meaning In the process of gaining corruption you also gain more loot from your victims.

It is a risk/reward system that eventually stops rewarding you because what you are doing is bad behavior. If it was purely a punishment then non-combatants would not drop extra loot.

I'm not arguing against any of what you are saying here, not st all.

What I am saying is that corruption is not supposed to have an up side to it. Sure, you had a reason for gaining it when you got it, but actually *having* it is not supposed to have any benefits - and I said that in reply to a request for adding in a benefit to being corrupt.

Sathrago

i mean tomatoe tomato at this point. I guess im seeing this as a glass half full and you two are seeing it as a half empty. There is a benefit for gaining corruption, and thats the loot you get from killing players as well as removing them from a zone such as a grinding spot or gathering area to take it for you or your party.

That's the last time ill try explaining that to you since this is pretty much derailed at this point.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

i mean tomatoe tomato at this point. I guess im seeing this as a glass half full and you two are seeing it as a half empty. There is a benefit for gaining corruption, and thats the loot you get from killing players as well as removing them from a zone such as a grinding spot or gathering area to take it for you or your party.

That loot is the benefit you gain from killing the players in question, not from gaining corruption.

The act you are performing is killing the player, and this act results in three distinct things happening.
The first is that the player in question suffers death penalties.
The second is that you are able to loot a portion of materials that player had on them.
The third is that you can corruption.

Each of these are distinct and discrete events.

It is possible to kill a non-combatant player, who then takes the death penalty in full and you gain corruption, and then not loot the materials they drop.

As such, when someone says there are many benefits to being corrupt and no positives, the argument that the loot you gained from killing a player isn't a direct result of being corrupt, and so is not a valid point to make against such a statement.

It is a valid point to state that it is one of several reasons to gain that corruption, but it is not a benefit of having that corruption.

This is not an argument on semantics as you are suggesting, it is a point of mechanics.

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

That loot is the benefit you gain from killing the players in question, not from gaining corruption.

The act you are performing is killing the player, and this act results in three distinct things happening.
The first is that the player in question suffers death penalties.
The second is that you are able to loot a portion of materials that player had on them.
The third is that you can corruption.

Each of these are distinct and discrete events.

It is possible to kill a non-combatant player, who then takes the death penalty in full and you gain corruption, and then not loot the materials they drop.

As such, when someone says there are many benefits to being corrupt and no positives, the argument that the loot you gained from killing a player isn't a direct result of being corrupt, and so is not a valid point to make against such a statement.

It is a valid point to state that it is one of several reasons to gain that corruption, but it is not a benefit of having that corruption.

This is not an argument on semantics as you are suggesting, it is a point of mechanics.

Alright heres a series of questions ill ask you. answer them in order.

How do you gain corruption?

What scenarios would incentivize a player to attack another player?

Do you gain anything from killing other players?

Do you believe that your average non-combatant player would be scared if they saw a corrupted player, or happy?

mcstackerson

I'm confused but it seems like the argument stems from Noaani saying that there is supposed to be no benefit to corruption and they don't intend to add a positive to gaining corruption, which is true.

They don't want to encourage you to kill for the sake of killing. If you go outside your town and see a random player sitting there, they don't want to encourage you to kill them just because you can.

They don't want you to want to gain corruption.

As was posted, corruption is supposed to be a risk, it's not supposed to have a benefit. They want players to balance this risk vs whatever they stand to gain from a kill.

Yes, you can gain resources by killing someone and the kill could result in corruption but these rewards aren't guaranteed. You only get these things if they have them. If the opponent has no resources, you aren't getting anything.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Alright heres a series of questions ill ask you. answer them in order.

How do you gain corruption?

What scenarios would incentivize a player to attack another player?

Do you gain anything from killing other players?

Do you believe that your average non-combatant player would be scared if they saw a corrupted player, or happy?

I'm not sure what the point of this is, but I'll play along.

Killing a player while that player is in the non-combatant state.

The main scenario in game that I can see will be that the player in question pisses you off. Resources and encounters will also likely be fought over, though in reality I don't expect players to consider it worth fighting against a random player for these most of the time.

You gain a small amount resources and certificates if the player has any on them. If you are fighting over resource spawns or encounters, you gain non-exclusive access to them for a short duration. Most importantly, you gain the satisfaction in having killed the player that pissed you off.

The average player will be wary, neither scared nor happy. You can test this out in game - gain a small amount of corruption and walk around a sparsely populated area (though one that does actually have people). Don't act threatening towards other players at all, and observe their behavior. Most players will keep an eye on you, but if you do not get too close to them or do not target them, they will likely ignore you (these players are wary). A small number of players may leave the area (these players are scared), and eventually a player will attack you (this player is happy).

You will likely see a half dozen other players before you come across the player that attacks you.

I played your game, now I want you to answer those same questions.

akabear

This system is pretty closely based on the L2 model which served well for a variety of situation not just regular conflict

The early L2 model was very harsh with large amount of drops by the corrupted player when killed but later this was softened a little with a lesser number of drops.

Botting
I recall in L2, occasionally finding botting players and having a team player either risk their own drop or sacrifice their alt for killing that bot. And when it was a botted party that had an rez enabled botted party member they would kill over and over as the ressurect the player resumed active play.

I remember one particular instance where the player that was botting was multi delevelled by other players and not a damn was given as few tolerated botting.

Perhaps griefing, I would consider player exercised justice.

Contesting Areas
I also remember having other player parties that were pve, come and just start playing in a primary xp spot over the top of our team.. the area did not generate sufficent xp for both groups.. the pve team would rely on the fact that not many would be prepared to go red/corrupted. So it would come down to stamina, which ever group would be prepared last out a period of low xp gain.. then a team would break and enter either into pvp or sometimes go red.. and sometimes that letting a team go red on one team was a ploy by the other who had another group on standby nearby to take them out and enjoy the pickings.

So not always clear cut and simple!

System sounds fine as is.

Vedia

Corrupted shouldn't have the odds stacked in their favour. Maybe make the debuff less against combatants and harsher when corrupted attack non combatants, but if you have 6 bounty hunters, you should need about 8 corrupted to kill them.

This makes people who want to be corrupted have to face the consequences. In saying that give more reward for corrupted players, but keep the risk level or even increase the level of risk and consequences for corrupted players.
More consequences and risks than reward though, when fighting non combatants.

When corrupted players fight other corrupted and combatants, then the reward should be greater for corrupted players fighting combatants, compared to combatants fighting corrupted or other combatants, but with added risk and consequences for corrupted players compared to combatants.

And the consequences and risk corrupted players face when fighting non combatants should be significantly higher than when corrupted players fight combatants or other corrupted players, and with less reward for killing non combatants compared to when corrupted players fight combatants and other corrupted players, to prevent abuse of the PvP system.

consultant

well reason bounty hunter will not work is because toons will probably not wait for bounty hunter to come and kill him most likely will want to get debuff off and get green as soon as possible.

Bounty Hunter system serves as punishment for curroption zone pvp. So does not have to be necessarily fair or 1v1

perseus01

consultant wrote: »

well reason bounty hunter will not work is because toons will probably not wait for bounty hunter to come and kill him most likely will want to get debuff off and get green as soon as possible.

Bounty Hunter system serves as punishment for curroption zone pvp. So does not have to be necessarily fair or 1v1

Dat's why dey camp. What Bounty Hunter doesn't want to wait on their prey? I mean you have to take in consideration there will certainly be designated "Hotspots" in Verra people will migrate to for fun and sport.

FuryBladeborne

Vedia wrote: »

Corrupted shouldn't have the odds stacked in their favour. Maybe make the debuff less against combatants and harsher when corrupted attack non combatants, but if you have 6 bounty hunters, you should need about 8 corrupted to kill them.

This makes people who want to be corrupted have to face the consequences. In saying that give more reward for corrupted players, but keep the risk level or even increase the level of risk and consequences for corrupted players.
More consequences and risks than reward though, when fighting non combatants.

When corrupted players fight other corrupted and combatants, then the reward should be greater for corrupted players fighting combatants, compared to combatants fighting corrupted or other combatants, but with added risk and consequences for corrupted players compared to combatants.

And the consequences and risk corrupted players face when fighting non combatants should be significantly higher than when corrupted players fight combatants or other corrupted players, and with less reward for killing non combatants compared to when corrupted players fight combatants and other corrupted players, to prevent abuse of the PvP system.

You seem to have some fundamental misunderstandings of the corruption system. The only way to gain corruption is to kill a non-combatant. Therefore, killing non-combatants does already equal more corruption and risk.

Your point about about abusing the PvP system is opposite of Ashes vision to increase consensual PvP. You suggest reducing the reward of killing non-combatants. However, this encourages non-combatants to refuse to fight in order to avoid dropping their stuff. Ashes encourages PvP by reducing the amount lost if the non-combatant chooses to fight. Combined with the potential to loot the attackers corpse, non-combatants are effectively paid to fight an attacker.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption

The corrupted stat penalty does not apply to fighting bounty hunters. Therefore, a theoretical equal stat and skill corrupted vs. bounty hunter results in equal chances to win. It does not require something like 8 corrupted to beat 6 bounty hunters.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Bounty_hunters

There is no reward for being corrupted because the only way to become corrupted is to kill non-combatants and killing non-combatants is discouraged in Ashes.

In an earlier post in this thread, I explained why you should rarely gain corruption as long as your killing players within 10 levels lower than you. This means that you can generally kill all you want to as long as you kill those who stand a chance in a fight.

Child Item