Should there be an outlaw town for Pkers?

Based on my time in the game UO, aka Ultima Online, where you had a PKer system where you went from grey to red. Grey being your open to attacks cause you killed someone or stole from someone, too red where you are just a killer, and you can enter any towns without being killed by guards.

Not sure if this topic was talked about, but I was thinking, why not have a town for the killers?

If not a town, then a caravan type, one they can be setup in hidden locations, and can grown to a level 2 or 3 only. This town needs to be one that can be taken down, and could be relocated to a different hidden location. One only known by a few PKers. A safe place for them to call home, and where they can sell or buy goods as needed.

Think of it as an outlaw town, one that could be moved after a day or two. A few tents and shacks and this can be a nice place for the villain type players. What do you think? Of course these type of camp towns wouldn't be allowed to be setup close to regular ones.

This is just a though, one I am floating out there, to see if others like it or not.

So what do you think? Please express yourself.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sathrago

Jamation wrote: »

I might be wrong, but I don't think there will be towns outside of the developable nodes anyways? If there are I feel like that's going to take away from the whole node system a bit, which is a huge part of ashes, considering people could just go to these random towns instead of the player established nodes.

There won't be as far as we know. Unless its part of a dungeon setup or something similar. Even the starting cities will be nodes.

Frostshot1

Would be funny to see a bunch of PK'ers take over a node and build a society.

McMackMuck

The corruption system needs to work as intended, so I don't see the need for any new game mechanics or special deals for corrupted players.

Every corrupted player can run and hide from Bounty Hunters to their heart's content. If you have uncorrupted buddies that are prepared to run errands for you to a nearby node so that you don't have to show your face, then that works well enough for me. You could just donate all you stuff to them then go die a few (hundred) times to lose the corruption. Your buddies could collect the bounty. Then you can reclaim your stuff (if they let you!) and start working off your EXP debt. That is "risk versus reward" (RvR) working perfectly!

If you want to kill other players, why not join in on one of the many PvP activities (caravans, sieges, arenas) and fight someone who is prepared to fight back?

Why do you want to kill a green?
Picking a fight with a green should only ever be because 1) they've been disrespecting you in chat (your RvR choice) or 2) you've seen them gather stuff that is worth the corruption to make them drop it (your RvR choice). That is worth less if you die (rinse repeat) before you can offload it.

Are we looking at the demographic that aren't very good at PvP but still want to feel good / brag about killing other players?

Players that only want to kill soft targets (for kicks) seem like cowards to me. I am happy that the corruption system discourages cowards from playing.

daveywavey

Shame they can't put a little questionnaire on creating a forum thread:

"Is this thread about reducing Corruption penalties?
Is this thread about removing Open-World PvP?
Is this thread about disliking placeholder Animations?
Is this thread actually about WoW?"

If "YES", Delete thread.

WhitneyHagasMatsumoto

Well, well, well. Calm down.
I think I he was just trying to have a constructive discussion about an idea that came to mind that I he thought might give more depth to the world of roleplaying and Ashes.

Often good things come from this kind of flexible thinking

I want this forum to be a place where people can freely express their ideas.

*I realized that there was a terrible mistake in the second line, so I corrected it

If I write a sentence that doesn't make the subject clear, I put my translation software in a bad mood ……

Lycancoffee

The corruption system, as some of you are describing it, is terrible. The point of games is to have fun. The corruption system “punishes” players by putting highly aggressive players into a very high risk-reward situation. That doesn’t mean that being “corrupt” shouldn’t also be fun. Games shouldn’t have systems that make players not want to play the game at all.

I understand that some people here are terrified of getting randomly pk’d, but quite frankly there are always those players who enjoy being so toxic in an MMO that those players deserve to have a train other people pk them on site, and I’m glad this game mechanic exists where players can handle the worst people of the community interactively through “aggressive negotiations”.

Additionally, corruption lets players become the outlaws if they choose to walk that high risk path. It’s ok to make it a very restricted gameplay style, but it shouldn’t make “staying red” not an option if you’re hardcore enough to be that bad. Players really do make the best villains.

Finally I’d like to point out that some of the posters here act like disagreeing with “what Steven said” is some sort of sin. This is a discussion forum, and I’m pretty sure he wants to hear our opinions...especially when they don’t agree with his own.

Songcaller

Well, Corruption will be matched by item degradation efficiency losses by the sounds of things. Players can troll non-combatants who want to just PvE by repeat deaths and forcing efficiency loss on Greens. I think the corruption system is perfectly fine. Griefers will be griefers and griefers will go red much like in BDO.

McMackMuck

granthor wrote: »

Well the whole point of the outlaw town would be a safe place for PKers to go, but at the same time it would be out to attacks by the player base. To destroy it would be a great way to earn big rewards, but at the same time shouldn't be easy to take down.

480 square km above ground + 100 square km underground = 223 sq miles. In summary, there are plenty of places for the corrupted to hide. Best to scatter and not gather in one place. I'm assuming that everyone has read:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
https://ashes101.com/pvp <scroll down to corruption>

If you've read the above then you would realise that the most corrupt show up on Bounty Hunter maps. Do you want to be in the same location that the Bounty Hunters are already homing in on?

_IF_ a town for the corrupted were allowed to exist it would be the easiest to take down. Lay the siege. Ill-gotten loot is now trapped in node storage. During siege prep kill the corrupted, many may lose gear and swap corruption for EXP debt and death penalties. Siege prep won't see many defensive tasks completed because the Bounty Hunters are ready to kill corrupted whenever they log in. During the siege the corrupted defenders have less gear and are weakened by penalties. How could this ever fit "shouldn't be easy to take down"? Seems like the weakest siege target ever!

unknownsystemerror

McMackMuck wrote: »

If a GREEN is gathering with a mule then you can kill the mule without killing the player and getting corruption.

This specific scenario was answered by Steven. Mules, combat pets, and mounts fall under the flagging system. If you kill their mule, you gain corruption.

WhitneyHagasMatsumoto

Hmmm ......
Maybe I'm misunderstanding because I'm reading a translated version of the text.

Is anyone else under the misconception that the person who created this thread is expressing an opinion specific to a "system for RED players to survive"?
To me, I think he's saying that it would be interesting if the game system had the scope of roleplaying that RED organizes, assuming you're willing to accept risks such as "being targeted by bounty hunters" ......

Of course, this is a proposal for a specification that is not currently envisioned, so I can understand your confusion, but I don't think it's something you should reject to that extent.

Am I simply mistaken?

Songcaller

I'll be devil's advocate and say, why should Corrupted Players have a safe haven? No-one else will have a safe haven. Not greens, not purples, not citizens and not raiders. Of course, you can't be harmed when at your market stall or in your freehold but your freehold can be destroyed for a period after a siege. There are exceptions to the rules which I stated, but, the rules are to prevent murder rampages.

WhitneyHagasMatsumoto

My apologies.
I'm looking at a literal translation of the text, so I may have come across as more offensive than what you all intended.

At least I don't see the need for RED people to have such a system.
But the fact that people here don't raise the idea eliminates even the "possibility" of having a positive effect.

Often, what we need is something seemingly useless.

Instead of arguing about whether something is meaningful or meaningless, think about whether it would be fun to have it, and you will understand

If you only think about necessity, games are not necessarily necessary in life.

Songcaller

There will be no fast travel (Except family TP and Scientific Node). All of the corrupted players would be congregated around a safe haven. It wouldn't remain secret for very long. All Bounty Hunters would gravitate to one region and know where the safe haven is.

Corrupted Players already get reduced Corrupted State Timers for being part of a Military Node. I do not think they need to switch from a Military Node to a Secret Node.

WhitneyHagasMatsumoto

Yeah!
That narrative sounds constructive, even through translation software!
Thanks for the response

Songcaller

I do my best, but, my knowledge may not be current. Changes happen and I don't watch all interviews. Furthermore, what I do understand and relate remains subject to change.

Thanks for your input, all the best. Neu.

McMackMuck

Jamation wrote: »

I might be wrong, but I don't think there will be towns outside of the developable nodes anyways? If there are I feel like that's going to take away from the whole node system a bit, which is a huge part of ashes, considering people could just go to these random towns instead of the player established nodes.

I think it's fair to say that the node system is here to stay (Huzzah!) and any talk of nodes outside the 103 node system (except the 3 nodes per castle) is not coming from Intrepid.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Nodes
https://ashes101.com/nodes

Lycancoffee

What they are offering is the idea of having a town where corrupted players can buy, sell and craft things and bank without being attacked by guards, but with guards who would would attack anyone not corrupted.

Black Desert and ArcheAge, both had this. ESO sort of did too, but ESO was pve crime and a different style. I remember this being a thing in other games too, though I can’t remember which.

In most cases the towns were in remote, not super desirable locations. The system of having an “outlaw” town or area worked really well in those games by adding to the game content and play options in a meaningful way.

daveywavey

Lycancoffee wrote: »

What they are offering is the idea of having a town where corrupted players can buy, sell and craft things and bank without being attacked by guards, but with guards who would would attack anyone not corrupted.

It's not that we don't understand the suggestion, it's just that it's already been shot down plenty times, and wouldn't really work with the whole purpose of the Corruption system.

Noaani

WhitneyHagasMatsumoto wrote: »

Instead of arguing about whether something is meaningful or meaningless, think about whether it would be fun to have it, and you will understand
If you only think about necessity, games are not necessarily necessary in life.

Will it be more fun for the PK'ers? Yes.

Will it be more fun for the people that are then subject to higher levels of PK activity because of this? No.

The point to PvP in Ashes is for it to happen in caravans, sieges, guild or node wars, and the arena. PvP where corruption is involved is not the focus, which is why it is the only PvP that has a penalty associated with it.

It has that penalty because it is not fun for everyone involved, and by its nature, is not opt in for all involved. All other forms of PvP - the ones that dont have corruption as a potential outcome - are ipt in for both sides.

This is why corruption has no upside, and wont have an upside.

Even if you look at it from a pure *fun* perspective, the most fun for everyone (which is what matters, not what is fun for one) is for PvP in these opt in situations to be encouraged, and corruption based PvP to be discouraged.

WhitneyHagasMatsumoto

@Noaani -san

Oh!
I'm genuinely afraid of PKers because I want to work on my crafting, aside from when the game is first released.
However, when I saw this thread, I thought to myself,"Oh, so that's one way to have fun".

At that time, I was thinking as if I were a PKer, but in other words, I forgot my original feeling of fearing it.

If you think about it, as long as harming non-combatants is not encouraged in terms of current game design, it might not be a good idea to have a wealth of content available for it and make it seem appealing.

Thank you!
As someone who often thinks too sensibly, this has given me another level of deep thought about this discussion

Child Item