The function of corruption is exactly the same. There's just a proportional amount of corruption for subsequent attacks on a pacifist. If you can explain to me how that discourages green from attacking a purple in any different way than the current system..
No, it's not the same. This literally changes the current function of corruption. If all the currently defined penalties apply from corruption for just attacking a green, you will reduce open world pvp to greens attacking greens. The function of corruption in your proposal is to penalize open world pvp. At that point just play WoW?
lol. okay. we can just pretend you weren't trying to be an ass since u dont have the balls to own up to it. wont matter to me then.
I'm suggesting a base design choice. I only had a numerical inference to simplify the suggestion. The point is, the conditional modifiers for corruption having an extra initial step, which is pre-death, might be nice to discourage people who want to play around the system and harass people by not killing them.
What you're saying doesn't have any difference to what the current system is. If green player 1 attacks pacifist green player 2, but don't want corruption, in either system, they will stop BEFORE killing them.
In the current system, I can be a purple griefer and follow a green and attack them as they try to fight mobs as much as i want. Zero limitations. The player base itself would have to intervene.
In the current system, I can be a purple griefer and follow a green and attack them as they try to fight mobs as much as i want. Zero limitations. The player base itself would have to intervene.
Except you might go red because you don't see your target's hp so you don't know which of your hits can kill them. But yes, you won't be penalized for just attacking a person w/o killing them. If Steven wanted to punish people for attacking other people, he'd implement your system or would just remove open world pvp because that's exactly what will happen if your system was implemented.
lol. okay. we can just pretend you weren't trying to be an ass since u dont have the balls to own up to it. wont matter to me then.
It's fine. I responded to you as if you were an adult with the ability to hear a disagreement to a suggestion without taking it personally. Clearly that was a mistake based on your tantrum to hearing 'no'. I'll adjust accordingly in the future.
What you're saying doesn't have any difference to what the current system is. If green player 1 attacks pacifist green player 2, but don't want corruption, in either system, they will stop BEFORE killing them.
This doesn't comport with your suggestion. Here's your proposed change:
Purple ---Attacks---> Green ---Becomes---> Red
Here's the disconnect I'm seeing: Players A and B are both Green.
Player A attacks Player B. Player A is now Purple.
Player A continues to attack Player B, now Player A is Red and gains corruption even if Payer B is alive and well.
That's a very different system than what's currently planned.
I don't like it. Being able to fire a "warning shot" or take someone to low HP while giving them a chance to leave is important to me. Taking this away will encourage PvE griefing by skewing the risk v reward too far in the green player's favor.
Yeah, and fighting for the right to pve is a core concept in Ashes. The soft friction between players leads to good interactions. You want to farm a cool mob or a rare resource? You either gotta be lucky to not have any competitors for the same goal or fight for them. And on top of that you can just be killed for your loot later on. Except in your system you'll lose twice as much loot if you don't immediately fight back against an attacker. Most likely if a dude sees you're gathering/farming good stuff, he'll be prepared for the consequence of going red on you, so he'll just quickly attack you and you won't even have the chance to flag back up to half your death penalty, so you'll lose more resources in this system.
So then, in the current system, why does the dude seeing me farming NOT want to kill me. I still can't see the difference on this part specifically. How is the dude's TTK changing so severely in my system?
I gave an example why it's safer. In my experience attackers don't just throw their strongest hit as their first, because it might have some additional mechanics that might be on cd when the attacker needs it during the potential pvp fight. And in most cases (again, from my experience of playing L2 for 12 years), pvp initiators want a fair pvp for a spot, so the flagging attack is a weak one. And if the target fights back and then wins, the attacker might not come back to that location because they understand that their target is not a weakling and deserves that spot.
In your system there's no point in a weak first attack, because the chances are - the green will not fight back, because the system completely supports them not flagging up, because you can't do shit after your first hit.
Idk if my system changes that really. I feel like players would still do a basic hit to initiate a fight, especially because they couldn't do another hit without turning red. So they wait to see if they respond. And if they do, great, its pvp on a fair level. If the green player uses the advantage against a purple player, that sucks. But the current system advocates for that in a similar way but on the reverse because I can keep attacking them. So, one of the players will have the opportunity to abuse the system for an advantage. And it just depends on which side do we want that on.
You missed the "attacker would go red" part. I meant that the green player is completely safe from any more attacks. And in the case that the attacker does decide to attack more - they're immediately a red player and can be killed by anyone. And if they have a somewhat big PK count - they even have stat dampening and now their target can kill them way more easily.
I think this can be solved with tuning some variables. It doesn't have to be single hit. But it does have to be simple so that players go into a pvp situation with proper intent. I also didn't know that PK count stat dampening went into affect upon re-becoming red again. But i think it's also fair for the stat damening to have SOME effect, even on that individual moment.
I gave an example why I don't believe that people will be throwing out huge attacks at random people. Now I can obviously be wrong, but that is why I explicitly stated that I'm commenting on your system from the context of 12 years of experience with the currently planned system. And in that experience, most players go for fair fights for locations because it's not only more fun this way, but it also immediately shows them if they really deserve to farm that location.
I would hope people go for the same fair fight on the other side of it. This game might be having active block, maybe even the case of being forced the brunt a massive attack isn't here either. who knows tho
lol. okay. we can just pretend you weren't trying to be an ass since u dont have the balls to own up to it. wont matter to me then.
It's fine. I responded to you as if you were an adult with the ability to hear a disagreement to a suggestion without taking it personally. Clearly that was a mistake based on your tantrum to hearing 'no'. I'll adjust accordingly in the future.
I think it was more so your obtuseness and giggling more than being told no. Your sense of humor is a bit caustic, possibly more than some people are used to. I don't mind it, but it could be jarring to some people. @Alacrite just needs to learn to not take it personally as it is something you do with everyone equally.
The irony of how sensitive you are Alacrite to "attacks" on the forum and how it correlates to how sensitive you are to being attacked in a video game. My god man. Crowe is like a gentle butterfly compared to some of the other people on this forum.
Your idea is not good. Your scenario of someone being attacked repeatedly without being killed is intended, and not griefing, within reason. Obviously in extreme situations where someone is doing it to you 24/7 (or for some other inordinate amount of time) for no reason, you have a case for harassment and you need to contact a GM.
But the grabass that players are going to do to each other, the iffing at each other, trying to scare others off, that's all intended man.
Whats more important is, do you think it would reduce harassment and why/why not. I know my system wouldn't be perfect. Griefers will find a way.
I'm pretty sure it would increase griefing. The griefers from the current system would stay the same, except they'd probably be even more annoying because they'd follow you around for longer, waiting for their flag timers to reset after each hit. So they'd be hanging above you for, potentially, dozens of minutes, like that one killer with a spoon from the meme video.
So then, in the current system, why does the dude seeing me farming NOT want to kill me. I still can't see the difference on this part specifically. How is the dude's TTK changing so severely in my system?
He might want to kill you if he deems it rewarding enough against the risk of becoming red if you decide not to fight back. And with each hit that you don't return, his risk goes up. And considering how long the ttk in Ashes supposed to be, the attacker will have quite a bit of time to rethink the risks and rewards.
Idk if my system changes that really. I feel like players would still do a basic hit to initiate a fight, especially because they couldn't do another hit without turning red. So they wait to see if they respond. And if they do, great, its pvp on a fair level. If the green player uses the advantage against a purple player, that sucks. But the current system advocates for that in a similar way but on the reverse because I can keep attacking them. So, one of the players will have the opportunity to abuse the system for an advantage. And it just depends on which side do we want that on.
Your system creates a catch-22. From the pov of an attacker, there's no reason to do a weak attack.
Under your system, if you want to remove someone from a farming location, your only choice is to kill your target (unless you're somehow so much stronger that you can completely outfarm them). One weak hit would obviously not remove the target, but it would bring you up to the 100% chance to become a red player if you attack them more. But if your target is farming mobs, there's a chance that doing your strongest hit could put them at risk of doing from a mob and they might run away at which point you might be able to take over the farm cycle. But if your hit doesn't achieve that, your only choice is to run away or become a PKer immediately. Well, you could obviously be a dick and do the harassment technique that I wrote above, but rn I'm talking about a dude that might want to avoid doing that.
At the same time, doing a big hit on a green player lowers their chance of fighting back because they'll feel like it's an unfair situation. And hell, why should they even fight back right now, when they could just tank another hit and then try to kill a Red player and get way more loot off of them. "If the attacker already went red then they will obviously try to kill me, so I might as well fight back and get a chance at some juicy loot. They might even have stat dampen and I'm gonna win!"
And now you have a win-win situation for the green player and a lose-lose situation for the attacker.
In the current system, there's a choice for the attacker. Do you want to have a fair pvp? You do a small attack and give the target a chance to fight back. They didn't? Hit them again to tell them to scram. They still didn't fight back? Now's your main decision and risk-weighing. Do you go red to remove them or does the location not warrant the risk?
The other initial choice is to immediately hit them with your big abilities explicitly telling them you want to take over the farm. If the green player believes in their power, they might still fight back.
And from the pov of the green player in the current system they also have more choices. They might fight back right away if they like pvp. They might test the attacker's willingness to PK them. And even at the very end of that test, the green player still have the choice of "do I want to suffer normal penalties or do I want to lose half the stuff?"
In your system there's no such decision-making. For a green player (no matter where they are on the pvx spectrum) the best decision is to wait for the second hit and then start fighting back. If the second hit never comes, you just continue farming. If it comes, you can fight back w/o becoming a freebie for all the other people around you and you have a chance at juicy PKer loot.
And this decision tree only leads to more dissatisfaction on all sides. If the green player dies while trying to kill the Red, they lose more stuff. If the Red player kills their target, even if they might've just wanted to shoo them away, they'll be severely punished (well, on top of being punished for just hitting a dude twice). And any stronger player feels bad for wasting their time on becoming stronger, because that power is useless when you get punished for using it.
I think this can be solved with tuning some variables. It doesn't have to be single hit. But it does have to be simple so that players go into a pvp situation with proper intent. I also didn't know that PK count stat dampening went into affect upon re-becoming red again. But i think it's also fair for the stat damening to have SOME effect, even on that individual moment.
The current situation already gives the opportunity to go into pvp with "proper intent". And the punishment is there to stop people from genociding everyone around them. And the tuning will be done during the alpha2 to figure out how much punishment should a kill give.
Dygz believes that the punishment will be so big that people rarely PK each other at all. I believe it'll be scaled depending on character lvl difference. Same-lvled people shouldn't get too much corruption, while killing a person a few lvls below you should give you quite a lot and killing someone >10 lvls below you should cripple you like a damn semi-truck running you over. The reality will probably be somewhere in-between, but I highly doubt it'll be punishing people for hitting others, because if Steven wanted that kind of system, he'd just implement a toggle or just have no pvp at all.
I would hope people go for the same fair fight on the other side of it. This game might be having active block, maybe even the case of being forced the brunt a massive attack isn't here either. who knows tho
And the current system encourages a fair fight way more than yours does. At least under the current penalties and their implementations. And I don't see a point in changing those as well, just to fit your system, when people haven't even tested the current one.
I don't see how that would be the case. Purples would still fight each other freely. A green could still kill another green for any reason. The main discouragement for PvP i think that this would create is that Purples have a disadvantage because Greens can hit them first.
From my understanding of that flowchart, a green CANNOT kill a green. So I'm not sure I follow your argument.
From my understanding of that flowchart, a green CANNOT kill a green. So I'm not sure I follow your argument.
I think Alacrite means that a random player is still free to kill another player at any time, so the result doesn't change at the end. Even though the path to that result is different.
1
Options
unknownsystemerrorMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That goal is still met under my conditions. And the player turning red for attacking would be met with more PvP because they can be attacked for less risk.
I see the argument for the purple state. But if this is a game that appeals to PvP'ers, then people will attack a purple player because that's what they want to do. you open yourself to the world of PvP, and anyone green around you who wants to join in, will do so.
No. The goal is not met because if I can turn purple and get half the death penalties just for attacking a Red, I have no reason to continue to attack after I turn purple. And the attacker gets 4x the death penalties just for attacking me once.
Also, I'm not going to want people attacking me while I'm Purple.
But, when you say that the player who turns Red is met with more PvP, what you are really saying is that the players choose to PvP outside of Battlegrounds will be punished with 4x th death penalties merely for initiating PvP.
Which means no one will do that.
So they'd be hanging above you for, potentially, dozens of minutes, like that one killer with a spoon from the meme video.
The dedication required for this feels higher than my example of griefing on the current system. I guess some people might feel more motivated, but in my head, less dedication means less motivation.
In your system there's no such decision-making. For a green player (no matter where they are on the pvx spectrum) the best decision is to wait for the second hit and then start fighting back. If the second hit never comes, you just continue farming. If it comes, you can fight back w/o becoming a freebie for all the other people around you and you have a chance at juicy PKer loot.
You are right here. Even though I stated a "second attack condition", my main goal for the condition is actually just somewhere "pre-death". I tend to simplify my point to not get so wordy. But I also see your argument for wanting death to be the condition, and I think its fair and already a good system.
And the current system encourages a fair fight way more than yours does. At least under the current penalties and their implementations. And I don't see a point in changing those as well, just to fit your system, when people haven't even tested the current one.
You do have the experience of L2 so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right that it does make a fairer fight. I'm completely imagining the scenarios, for a combat system that hasn't been revealed yet.
I still would like to think there's a fine balance before the PK. We also don't know how the hp visibility will work either.
I also only ask this because I have friends that I would want to like the game, even though they're very much not into PvP. But that's because most MMO's have never had a solid world pvp mode that attracts casuals. And this game is very much built for casuals just as much for hardcore players, in terms of the intention.
Greens who attack Greens turn Red, right?
Non-Combatants can't attack each other and remain Non-Combatants.
In Alacrite's system a green becomes purple after hitting another green. But purple immediately becomes red if they attack a green. So any green has a free hit against anyone, but anymore outgoing damage towards a green player would immediately turn red.
I also forgot to ask Alacrite how would dots work in that system lol. Would that be one hit or several? Imagine becoming red because you missclicked and used a dot instead of a singular spell.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2022
@Alacrite
Explain your concept of "abusing the system" again, please?
It's fine. I responded to you as if you were an adult with the ability to hear a disagreement to a suggestion without taking it personally. Clearly that was a mistake based on your tantrum to hearing 'no'. I'll adjust accordingly in the future.
Sorry, I failed the grasp the inherent function of how an adult should speak with micro aggressions layered in their disagreement. You can continue to ironically belittle me while stating you're superior maturity.
Player A attacks Player B. Player A is now Purple.
Player A continues to attack Player B, now Player A is Red and gains corruption even if Payer B is alive and well.
Thats true to my original post. but you replied to the one comment that said I was merely simplifying the base design choice. The condition for some level of corruption just has to be pre-death. In any system, there are gonna be holes for abuse. So i brought up the question to see if I can cover the hole that is a griefer dicking a pacifist as they try to do their own thing. If the game philosophy only want people turning purple because both players WANT to PvP, then i felt this might help further that cause.
I know that this the devs' intend on making this game a welcoming space for all types of players as well. So following this notion,
"Ashes will not be for everyone. And that is ok." - Steven Sharif
The game is meant to draw in PvE'ers just as much I feel. I'm actually trying to look into modifications that fit their game philosophy. I could be wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, they're equally split and thats why they call the game a PvX game.
That goal is still met under my conditions. And the player turning red for attacking would be met with more PvP because they can be attacked for less risk.
I see the argument for the purple state. But if this is a game that appeals to PvP'ers, then people will attack a purple player because that's what they want to do. you open yourself to the world of PvP, and anyone green around you who wants to join in, will do so.
No. The goal is not met because if I can turn purple and get half the death penalties just for attacking a Red, I have no reason to continue to attack after I turn purple. And the attacker gets 4x the death penalties just for attacking me once.
Also, I'm not going to want people attacking me while I'm Purple.
But, when you say that the player who turns Red is met with more PvP, what you are really saying is that the players choose to PvP outside of Battlegrounds will be punished with 4x th death penalties merely for initiating PvP.
Which means no one will do that.
Initiating PvP doesn't turn you red in my case. PvP still only happens if green decides to attack purple. Its the point at which purple decides to give up that I'm trying to change. Well, that and also avoiding a purple poking a green as they fight mobs or something. possibly interrupting gathering if thats how that works.
@Alacrite
Explain your concept of "abusing the system" again, please?
Lets say I'm a griefer, and I don't like this person farming an area I want. Killing mobs that I want. Since they're a pacifist, I get met with no repercussions. So they try to farm something. I hit and interrupt it. Or if they tried to fight a mob. I blast them and CC them, take aggro of the mob to kill and farm it. This would happen in both systems. But I'm hoping my system minimizes it.
Hopefully I answered the questions that needed answering. Appreciate you guys taking the time to read and write back. Specially @NiKr. mofo giving me a damn thesis every time lmao.
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Not sure if there is a mis-understanding of the base flagging system. The only way to become purple is to attack either a green or a purple. The after 90 seconds of not attacking a player you will turn back to a green.
As far as the flagging key I am sure keys will be rebindable so you can bind them as you wish.
So, I've read through the thread, but I honestly don't see what it is the OP is trying to achieve here.
I mean, to start, there is the logistical issue of the suggestion in the OP literally not being able to function.
Since everyone starts out as a green, if attacking a green automatically sets you as corrupt, there is no possible means of acquiring "combatant" status. Everyone will be green until someone attacks a green, in which case they will be corrupt. Any green player that attacks or kills a corrupt player would still remain a green.
There would literally be no possible way to become purple with the suggestion in the OP - without further changes to the system.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This proposed change could significantly reduce likelihood of PVP as there would be less to no, incentive retaliate as such greater benefits to let everyone go red. Definitely no.
The measure of the punitive nature of the system will be less about being "red" alone, but more about what the consequence entails;
a) how much will drop from the red player at death,
b)how hard it will to reduce karma to zero to back non red status
c) how much effort is required to cleanse of kill totals... (equivalent of L2 sin eater quest)
Only really from that can it be gauged if the system provides the right balance. and hopefully the stats are tweaked by the gm`s from analytics gained in-game to maintain the right balance.
I don't understand why people keep making suggestions to change complex player driven systems that no one haven't even tested...
Lol. The whole point of this is just theorizing. Literally the first word of the title is "Wondering". I'm on an MMO's forum thinking about a system and design. This is for fun. It's dork shit. I love people coming in here and trying to "own me" for having a thought
Not sure if there is a mis-understanding of the base flagging system. The only way to become purple is to attack either a green or a purple. The after 90 seconds of not attacking a player you will turn back to a green.
As far as the flagging key I am sure keys will be rebindable so you can bind them as you wish.
There actually was a slight misunderstanding in the beginning so if you read through the WHOLE thing that makes sense. But I did understand it quickly. And ultimately the point the stayed the same. Just extending corruption to a situation where a green's experience is being attacked and seeing how that works with the philosophy of keeping PvP'ers and PvE'er enjoying their own thing.
Comments
lol. okay. we can just pretend you weren't trying to be an ass since u dont have the balls to own up to it. wont matter to me then.
I'm suggesting a base design choice. I only had a numerical inference to simplify the suggestion. The point is, the conditional modifiers for corruption having an extra initial step, which is pre-death, might be nice to discourage people who want to play around the system and harass people by not killing them.
What you're saying doesn't have any difference to what the current system is. If green player 1 attacks pacifist green player 2, but don't want corruption, in either system, they will stop BEFORE killing them.
In the current system, I can be a purple griefer and follow a green and attack them as they try to fight mobs as much as i want. Zero limitations. The player base itself would have to intervene.
ok then. so sry. crow is innocent and is pure in his intent with all his words. my bad bud. moving on
It's fine. I responded to you as if you were an adult with the ability to hear a disagreement to a suggestion without taking it personally. Clearly that was a mistake based on your tantrum to hearing 'no'. I'll adjust accordingly in the future.
This doesn't comport with your suggestion. Here's your proposed change:
Here's the disconnect I'm seeing: Players A and B are both Green.
Player A attacks Player B. Player A is now Purple.
Player A continues to attack Player B, now Player A is Red and gains corruption even if Payer B is alive and well.
That's a very different system than what's currently planned.
So then, in the current system, why does the dude seeing me farming NOT want to kill me. I still can't see the difference on this part specifically. How is the dude's TTK changing so severely in my system?
Idk if my system changes that really. I feel like players would still do a basic hit to initiate a fight, especially because they couldn't do another hit without turning red. So they wait to see if they respond. And if they do, great, its pvp on a fair level. If the green player uses the advantage against a purple player, that sucks. But the current system advocates for that in a similar way but on the reverse because I can keep attacking them. So, one of the players will have the opportunity to abuse the system for an advantage. And it just depends on which side do we want that on.
I think this can be solved with tuning some variables. It doesn't have to be single hit. But it does have to be simple so that players go into a pvp situation with proper intent. I also didn't know that PK count stat dampening went into affect upon re-becoming red again. But i think it's also fair for the stat damening to have SOME effect, even on that individual moment.
I would hope people go for the same fair fight on the other side of it. This game might be having active block, maybe even the case of being forced the brunt a massive attack isn't here either. who knows tho
I think it was more so your obtuseness and giggling more than being told no. Your sense of humor is a bit caustic, possibly more than some people are used to. I don't mind it, but it could be jarring to some people. @Alacrite just needs to learn to not take it personally as it is something you do with everyone equally.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Your idea is not good. Your scenario of someone being attacked repeatedly without being killed is intended, and not griefing, within reason. Obviously in extreme situations where someone is doing it to you 24/7 (or for some other inordinate amount of time) for no reason, you have a case for harassment and you need to contact a GM.
But the grabass that players are going to do to each other, the iffing at each other, trying to scare others off, that's all intended man.
Under your system, if you want to remove someone from a farming location, your only choice is to kill your target (unless you're somehow so much stronger that you can completely outfarm them). One weak hit would obviously not remove the target, but it would bring you up to the 100% chance to become a red player if you attack them more. But if your target is farming mobs, there's a chance that doing your strongest hit could put them at risk of doing from a mob and they might run away at which point you might be able to take over the farm cycle. But if your hit doesn't achieve that, your only choice is to run away or become a PKer immediately. Well, you could obviously be a dick and do the harassment technique that I wrote above, but rn I'm talking about a dude that might want to avoid doing that.
At the same time, doing a big hit on a green player lowers their chance of fighting back because they'll feel like it's an unfair situation. And hell, why should they even fight back right now, when they could just tank another hit and then try to kill a Red player and get way more loot off of them. "If the attacker already went red then they will obviously try to kill me, so I might as well fight back and get a chance at some juicy loot. They might even have stat dampen and I'm gonna win!"
And now you have a win-win situation for the green player and a lose-lose situation for the attacker.
In the current system, there's a choice for the attacker. Do you want to have a fair pvp? You do a small attack and give the target a chance to fight back. They didn't? Hit them again to tell them to scram. They still didn't fight back? Now's your main decision and risk-weighing. Do you go red to remove them or does the location not warrant the risk?
The other initial choice is to immediately hit them with your big abilities explicitly telling them you want to take over the farm. If the green player believes in their power, they might still fight back.
And from the pov of the green player in the current system they also have more choices. They might fight back right away if they like pvp. They might test the attacker's willingness to PK them. And even at the very end of that test, the green player still have the choice of "do I want to suffer normal penalties or do I want to lose half the stuff?"
In your system there's no such decision-making. For a green player (no matter where they are on the pvx spectrum) the best decision is to wait for the second hit and then start fighting back. If the second hit never comes, you just continue farming. If it comes, you can fight back w/o becoming a freebie for all the other people around you and you have a chance at juicy PKer loot.
And this decision tree only leads to more dissatisfaction on all sides. If the green player dies while trying to kill the Red, they lose more stuff. If the Red player kills their target, even if they might've just wanted to shoo them away, they'll be severely punished (well, on top of being punished for just hitting a dude twice). And any stronger player feels bad for wasting their time on becoming stronger, because that power is useless when you get punished for using it. The current situation already gives the opportunity to go into pvp with "proper intent". And the punishment is there to stop people from genociding everyone around them. And the tuning will be done during the alpha2 to figure out how much punishment should a kill give.
Dygz believes that the punishment will be so big that people rarely PK each other at all. I believe it'll be scaled depending on character lvl difference. Same-lvled people shouldn't get too much corruption, while killing a person a few lvls below you should give you quite a lot and killing someone >10 lvls below you should cripple you like a damn semi-truck running you over. The reality will probably be somewhere in-between, but I highly doubt it'll be punishing people for hitting others, because if Steven wanted that kind of system, he'd just implement a toggle or just have no pvp at all. And the current system encourages a fair fight way more than yours does. At least under the current penalties and their implementations. And I don't see a point in changing those as well, just to fit your system, when people haven't even tested the current one.
From my understanding of that flowchart, a green CANNOT kill a green. So I'm not sure I follow your argument.
"Ashes will not be for everyone. And that is ok." - Steven Sharif
Non-Combatants can't attack each other and remain Non-Combatants.
No. The goal is not met because if I can turn purple and get half the death penalties just for attacking a Red, I have no reason to continue to attack after I turn purple. And the attacker gets 4x the death penalties just for attacking me once.
Also, I'm not going to want people attacking me while I'm Purple.
But, when you say that the player who turns Red is met with more PvP, what you are really saying is that the players choose to PvP outside of Battlegrounds will be punished with 4x th death penalties merely for initiating PvP.
Which means no one will do that.
You are right here. Even though I stated a "second attack condition", my main goal for the condition is actually just somewhere "pre-death". I tend to simplify my point to not get so wordy. But I also see your argument for wanting death to be the condition, and I think its fair and already a good system.
You do have the experience of L2 so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right that it does make a fairer fight. I'm completely imagining the scenarios, for a combat system that hasn't been revealed yet.
I still would like to think there's a fine balance before the PK. We also don't know how the hp visibility will work either.
I also only ask this because I have friends that I would want to like the game, even though they're very much not into PvP. But that's because most MMO's have never had a solid world pvp mode that attracts casuals. And this game is very much built for casuals just as much for hardcore players, in terms of the intention.
I also forgot to ask Alacrite how would dots work in that system lol. Would that be one hit or several? Imagine becoming red because you missclicked and used a dot instead of a singular spell.
Explain your concept of "abusing the system" again, please?
I am humbled.
Thats true to my original post. but you replied to the one comment that said I was merely simplifying the base design choice. The condition for some level of corruption just has to be pre-death. In any system, there are gonna be holes for abuse. So i brought up the question to see if I can cover the hole that is a griefer dicking a pacifist as they try to do their own thing. If the game philosophy only want people turning purple because both players WANT to PvP, then i felt this might help further that cause.
The game is meant to draw in PvE'ers just as much I feel. I'm actually trying to look into modifications that fit their game philosophy. I could be wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, they're equally split and thats why they call the game a PvX game.
Initiating PvP doesn't turn you red in my case. PvP still only happens if green decides to attack purple. Its the point at which purple decides to give up that I'm trying to change. Well, that and also avoiding a purple poking a green as they fight mobs or something. possibly interrupting gathering if thats how that works.
Lets say I'm a griefer, and I don't like this person farming an area I want. Killing mobs that I want. Since they're a pacifist, I get met with no repercussions. So they try to farm something. I hit and interrupt it. Or if they tried to fight a mob. I blast them and CC them, take aggro of the mob to kill and farm it. This would happen in both systems. But I'm hoping my system minimizes it.
Thanks again. Will read in the morning.
As far as the flagging key I am sure keys will be rebindable so you can bind them as you wish.
At 1:09:00
I mean, to start, there is the logistical issue of the suggestion in the OP literally not being able to function.
Since everyone starts out as a green, if attacking a green automatically sets you as corrupt, there is no possible means of acquiring "combatant" status. Everyone will be green until someone attacks a green, in which case they will be corrupt. Any green player that attacks or kills a corrupt player would still remain a green.
There would literally be no possible way to become purple with the suggestion in the OP - without further changes to the system.
The measure of the punitive nature of the system will be less about being "red" alone, but more about what the consequence entails;
a) how much will drop from the red player at death,
b)how hard it will to reduce karma to zero to back non red status
c) how much effort is required to cleanse of kill totals... (equivalent of L2 sin eater quest)
Only really from that can it be gauged if the system provides the right balance. and hopefully the stats are tweaked by the gm`s from analytics gained in-game to maintain the right balance.
Lol. The whole point of this is just theorizing. Literally the first word of the title is "Wondering". I'm on an MMO's forum thinking about a system and design. This is for fun. It's dork shit. I love people coming in here and trying to "own me" for having a thought
There actually was a slight misunderstanding in the beginning so if you read through the WHOLE thing that makes sense. But I did understand it quickly. And ultimately the point the stayed the same. Just extending corruption to a situation where a green's experience is being attacked and seeing how that works with the philosophy of keeping PvP'ers and PvE'er enjoying their own thing.