A suggestion for RP bounty hunting. Defeat instead of death. ( as a duel )

This is just an idea, but based on how a bounty hunter could serve it´s purpose in tracking and finishing a target.

Fact´s are, even if you send a killer to end your opponent, he/she will not die, only be defeated in PVP. This because no one can expect another player to delete a character due to being the target of a bounty and ending up defeated.

So with this fact in mind, a suggestion.

Perhaps a system could evolve in where a bounty hunter can defeat a player instead of killing him/her.
When the bounty hunter agree to take on a bounty, an ability is triggered for a certain amount of time. During that time, if the bounty hunter defeats the mark, the player is only " defeated " and knocked unconscious.

The bounty hunter will receive no corruption by this, as long as the bounty ability is still active.
When the bounty hunter has defeated the mark, it is up to the bounty hunter IF he or she wishes to kill the mark. If that is the case, the ability is deleted and corruption is added ( this because the killing is unnecessary really since the player is already defeated and down )

The end game of this is

* Bounty hunters can take on a bounty, and hunt down their target, defeat them and return for the reward.
* As long as the bounty is set and payed for ( an in game decided amount at minimum with a rather high cost ) KOS matters can be dealt with without it turning to ganking or harassment.
* As long as the bounty hunter stops at the defeated mark and not execute the player, no corruption is added.
* A limit is set on how often a Bounty hunter can take on bounties, and how often a player can set a bounty on the same mark.

Just an idea.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Lark Wyll

You can't get corruption from attacking a corrupt player or a combatant either for that matter.

Your concept would allow friends of corrupt player to help them skirt the corruption penalties of losing items and facing death penalties.

Grihm

How?

Taleof2Cities

Re-read the wiki Corruption page, @Grihm, and post any lingering questions you may have after that.

Grihm

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Re-read the wiki Corruption page, @Grihm, and post any lingering questions you may have after that.

Was just asking how Lark´s comment would work.
As for the suggestion, it´s just that... a suggestion to ad something part from death. Seems many are concerned they won´t be able to Bounty hunt with their KOS in mind.

George_Black

When a corrupted player dies they have a very high chance to drop full gear (wearing or carrying).

There is no way a BH will decide to knock down a corrupted player, instead of killing them and get their full items.

Btw, who is concerned that they wont ve able to BH?

Your suggestion is a big roadtrip. What for?

George_Black

Non combatant = green
Combatant = purple
Corrupted/PK = Red

A purple player is a player that lands a hit on a green player. You can become purple from hitting back another purple player, or healing a purple player.
If a purple kills another purple, there is no PK involved.

A red player is a player that after becoming purple by attacking a green, he/she kept attacking until the green died.
A red player gains amounts of corruption based on how many players they have previously killed (as shown on character window).
Healing a red turns you purple.

A BH can kill a red and not gain corruption, even if the red didnt fight back.
A red can kill a BH without gaining an additional PK score, or incur more corruption points.
A red can also kill a purple without gaining more corruption points and additional PK score.

A green can attack or kill a red without turning purple.
A green can kill a red without becoming themselves red.

A red may choose to run away from greens instead of fighting back, killing them, leading to more corruption points and additional PK score.

A red that dies, or kills mobs, slowly reduces Corruption Points. 0 corruption points makes a red green again.
Steven said there will be activities to reduce previous PK scores.

Grihm

George Black wrote: »

Btw, who is concerned that they wont ve able to BH?

Your suggestion is a big roadtrip. What for?

In case you missed it.
And as for why i suggest this... it´s stated in the post..so really don´t follow your question. Instead of death... defeat. You can read the post.

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/50181/bounties-to-hunt#latest
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/50159/open-world-pvp#latest

FuryBladeborne

@Grim
It seems like the point of your post is to avoid the bounty hunter getting corruption. However, killing corrupted players does not cause corruption whether it is a bounty hunter that did the killing or not. That is why people are asking what the point of your post is.

Tyranthraxus

The OP doesn't seem very practical. If you can kill someone in owPvP, why only defeat them in a bounty?

Can't the "defeated" player just then get back up and try to kill the bounty hunter, even though the BH just beat them?

Grihm

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

@Grim
It seems like the point of your post is to avoid the bounty hunter getting corruption. However, killing corrupted players does not cause corruption whether it is a bounty hunter that did the killing or not. That is why people are asking what the point of your post is.

If there is anything i would like to avoid, is letting people kill others without corruption. The point ( that you can read if you read the post ) is as said, to let bounties be payed for, limited in time and on the same person, and let an argument be dealt with without death.

Dygz

Bounties are not placed on people to settle an argument.

Grihm

Dygz wrote: »

Bounties are not placed on people to settle an argument.

Reading between the lines in som threads, people seem to try to get free from corruption to be able to play as bounty hunters, deal with KOS etc. This is in response to it, and to not let people get a free way to kill as they please.

I see it as, when you put a bounty on me, it´s payed for and you find me during that timer...the game basically has me flagged as accepting a duel from you. When it´s over, you made your point and we can move on. No gear lost, no " death´s "... but point made.

Listen... it´s just a suggestion, and i´m no Alpha tester. Just juggling ideas in all this heat and boredom based on thinking outside the box a bit.

Dygz

Right. I'm really just saying that's not what a bounty is.
Could be some other system.

Khambhat

From what I read here, it seems like they have addressed the PK and status (red, purple, green) pretty elegantly. BH systems have been discussed in many many other games and never (to my knowledge) implemented properly. have been wondering for years how to address this and by the sounds of it they might just have done it. I am not a tester (yet) and I am very impressed by this system. If they put as much thought into other systems as this one....this game is going to be something impressive.

Noaani

Grihm wrote: »

I see it as, when you put a bounty on me, it´s payed for and you find me during that timer...the game basically has me flagged as accepting a duel from you. When it´s over, you made your point and we can move on. No gear lost, no " death´s "... but point made.

But who is benefiting from this over the status quo?

The person that got attacked by the player that now has some of their stuff - and some corruption - then has to spend some coin to activate this bounty system.

The Bounty Hunter then has to accept this bounty, and the more of a "reward" it is to them, the more of a second penalty it is to the person that was attacked.

The attacker is then in a position where the Bounty Hunter may decide to not kill them, meaning this person has a chance to have a lower penalty than if the Bounty Hunter just attacked and killed them.

To me, all this would do is encourage people to work together, one attacks a player and takes some of their stuff, the other accepts the bounty and goes off and "defeats" their friend. Then the poor player that was attacked is taken from twice.

Even if this can only be done a few times a day, a system so obviously exploitable would be used a few times a day by a few hundred groups of players.

In your OP, you state that when you kill a player, they do not die, as the character just respawns. This is correct. However, when they respawn after being killed while corrupt, they have a penalty in the form of experience debt, as well as the chance of having lost items. These combined are the penalty to being killed, not permanent deletion of your character.

There are some other valid points in this thread. Rather than looking at them all as a negative, take them on board and see if you can refine your suggestion to work around them all - starting with a more clear idea of what the goal of the system is.

FuryBladeborne

Grihm wrote: »

FuryBladeborne wrote: »

@Grim
It seems like the point of your post is to avoid the bounty hunter getting corruption. However, killing corrupted players does not cause corruption whether it is a bounty hunter that did the killing or not. That is why people are asking what the point of your post is.

If there is anything i would like to avoid, is letting people kill others without corruption. The point ( that you can read if you read the post ) is as said, to let bounties be payed for, limited in time and on the same person, and let an argument be dealt with without death.

So, your taking the bounty hunter system which is only intended as a way to eliminate corrupted players and attempting to use it as a system of mutual PVP for some reason. Is there any reason why the arena system won't work as a way to have mutual PVP without corruption or the death penalty?

BTW, no corruption is added to either the bounty hunter or the corrupted player for killing the other under the current system.

WizardTim

Grihm wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Bounties are not placed on people to settle an argument.

Reading between the lines in som threads, people seem to try to get free from corruption to be able to play as bounty hunters, deal with KOS etc. This is in response to it, and to not let people get a free way to kill as they please.

I see it as, when you put a bounty on me, it´s payed for and you find me during that timer...the game basically has me flagged as accepting a duel from you. When it´s over, you made your point and we can move on. No gear lost, no " death´s "... but point made.

Listen... it´s just a suggestion, and i´m no Alpha tester. Just juggling ideas in all this heat and boredom based on thinking outside the box a bit.

Sounds like you're making up the problem you wish to solve.

The problem you wish to solve isn't a problem, it's by design. The entire purpose of the corruption system is to punish corrupted players, there is no other purpose to it. As a result, corrupted players are going to get the dirty end of the stick 100% of the time. This seems to be in direct contrast with what you want, which is to punish the players punishing the corrupted players by giving THEM corruption, and then creating a system that allows bounty hunters specifically to profit from "defeating" corrupted players.

Is that correct? You want all PvP deaths to result in corruption, even consensual?

Grimfaldra

I am with @wolfwood82 on this one. Corrupted PKers are marked for death and need to die, then lose their stuff. Then again until they cry. Then you yell at them "You cryin? I give you reason to cry!"...kill them again until they are no longer red.

Letting them get away with stuff and not risk their gear would set a dangerous precedent. Many people do not care about the wasted time, but they might care about an item that takes time/money to replace.

They will run around with throwaway gear anyway in the end, just like they did in L2 and if that method means they cannot PK anymore, Problem solved.. And yes, if you can become red "by accident" ... well, there is always collateral damage. Sad but true.

But the player who punishes a red should not get punished in turn. It will be players (BH or not) who will make sure that reds pay the price in the end. Discouraging that would be a bad idea imho.

Grihm

Quote

The end game of this is

* Bounty hunters can take on a bounty, and hunt down their target, defeat them and return for the reward.
* As long as the bounty is set and payed for ( an in game decided amount at minimum with a rather high cost ) KOS matters can be dealt with without it turning to ganking or harassment.
* As long as the bounty hunter stops at the defeated mark and not execute the player, no corruption is added.
* A limit is set on how often a Bounty hunter can take on bounties, and how often a player can set a bounty on the same mark.

To clarify even further.
The idea is in regards to other people claiming that they cannot do bounty hunting and or preform KOS in their guilds. The suggestion here is to have a separate way to " smack " your opponent down ( as a duel ) and be done with it. In no way shape or form am i trying to give people a way off corruption, since the corruption is there for a reason. One could almost say that what this is, is a time limited duel, and no you wont get items, money or anything... it´s a " cosmetic " defeat if you will to deal with in guild issues, RP grudges, clan arguments etc.

And no...people will not " run around with throwaway gear " and gank if that´s what you mean. If you read the list.. a bounty is limited by time and how often one person can get a bounty on them as well as it´s comes at a cost.

Noaani

Grihm wrote: »

* As long as the bounty is set and payed for ( an in game decided amount at minimum with a rather high cost ) KOS matters can be dealt with without it turning to ganking or harassment.

This still isn't a reason for the system.

Why would KOS matters turn in to ganking or harassment, and why would this system stop that? I mean, people gank and harass others primarily because they want to gank and/or harass. On the other hand, people that have a valid grievance tend to right the wrong and move on. Since this is an opt in system, it isn't doing anything to stop people that want to gank and/or harass from being able to do so, and if anything is giving them another avenue in which to do so.

Grihm wrote: »

it´s comes at a cost.

A cost too whom?

From your descriptions so far, the only cost is bared by the person that has the grievance. If I had a grievance against you, why would I go out of my way to spend money to lessen the result for you of that grievance that I have?

The person the grievance is against specifically has less of a cost to pay if this system is employed.

Child Item