It is going to be much more easy to get them fed to mobs in this game compared to do, you just need to not over attack but use a weak cc on them. And better yet they can't fight back else its a free kill for you xD.
I still hope that combatant CCs don't work on non-combatants. CCs working there would completely destroy the "risk vs reward" of the situation, because just CCing your target gives you no risk, while giving you the highest potential of reward. But hitting them with weak attacks until the mobs might finally kill them is truly a risky move, because mobs would either have to do 25+% HP hits to players or you'd be walking a razor's edge balance of "will this next hit kill my target or will the mob kill him before that?"
And that's not even counting any potential self-heals your target might have.
It is going to be much more easy to get them fed to mobs in this game compared to do, you just need to not over attack but use a weak cc on them. And better yet they can't fight back else its a free kill for you xD.
I still hope that combatant CCs don't work on non-combatants. CCs working there would completely destroy the "risk vs reward" of the situation, because just CCing your target gives you no risk, while giving you the highest potential of reward. But hitting them with weak attacks until the mobs might finally kill them is truly a risky move, because mobs would either have to do 25+% HP hits to players or you'd be walking a razor's edge balance of "will this next hit kill my target or will the mob kill him before that?"
And that's not even counting any potential self-heals your target might have.
Easier to hope that almost all CC does minor damage before applying its effect.
Easier to hope that almost all CC does minor damage before applying its effect.
Oh, I'm expecting it to do dmg. But I'd still want the CC effect itself to not trigger on the non-combatant or to just have no effect at all. Imo that's way more fair towards the pver and way more fun for the pvper (well, for me it would be). The adrenaline of "will this next attack make me red or will the mob finish them off" would be way higher than the one of "I'll just keep CCing my target until the mob brings it down". And imo pvp is all about that adrenaline. Obviously the ideal situation is where your target just fights back and you have a good proper fight, but in case the don't - you'd have the fun and risky action of trying to go around their decision in the most beneficial way.
I'm looking for what is effective to get them to pvp, not trying to challenge myself on going red lmao. Only adrenaline is if there is actual a fight, and if someone is ignoring you that isn't a fight. I'd say you would have to get into some pretty weird rules if nothing effected them with your skills. It is PvX at the end of the day you can't only do the pve without being effected.
Greens do not have a choice to make you stop attacking them.
Nobody has that choice, not greens, not purples, not reds, not BHs. What everybody besides reds has, is the choice to fight back and not be penalized for it. Reds have that choice against purples, reds, BHs, but not against greens, for no good reason.
I'm arguing that "for no good reason" part, specifically. Again if reds are ought to be additionally penalized for PvP, it shouldn't be limited to just vs greens. I probably wouldn't like that (I'm a strong advocate of non-penalized self-defense, after all), but at least the system would make sense, screaming loud and clear that "don't become red if you wish to continue PvPing without repercussions". The way it is designed now, the weird inconsistency in conditions where red can and can't fight back without extra penalty, makes me believe that this hasn't yet been very well thought through. We do know that "greens attacking reds and remaining greens" is still going to need testing to see what works and what doesn't, which seems to support my concern.
If greens attack a red, unprovoked, then they act as combatants or bounty hunters, and their non-combatant status should be irrelevant, because they do, in fact, consent to PvP. The red's "corrupted" status doesn't go anywhere, and they will be penalized accordingly should they die, but this weird condition where reds can receive additional corruption for consentual PvP, seems just off.
(The rest of your post is about avoiding becoming red and accepting the consequences if you do, which doesn't contribute to issue we're discussing.)
Greens do not have a choice to make you stop attacking them.
Nobody has that choice, not greens, not purples, not reds, not BHs. What everybody besides reds has, is the choice to fight back and not be penalized for it. Reds have that choice against purples, reds, BHs, but not against greens, for no good reason.
I'm arguing that "for no good reason" part, specifically. Again if reds are ought to be additionally penalized for PvP, it shouldn't be limited to just vs greens. I probably wouldn't like that (I'm a strong advocate of non-penalized self-defense, after all), but at least the system would make sense, screaming loud and clear that "don't become red if you wish to continue PvPing without repercussions". The way it is designed now, the weird inconsistency in conditions where red can and can't fight back without extra penalty, makes me believe that this hasn't yet been very well thought through. We know it's still going to need testing to see what works and what doesn't, which seems to support my concern.
If greens attack a red, unprovoked, then they act as combatants or bounty hunters, and their non-combatant status should be irrelevant, because they do, in fact, consent to PvP. The red's "corrupted" status doesn't go anywhere, and they will be penalized accordingly should they die, but this weird additional condition where reds can receive additional corruption for consentual PvP, seems just off.
(The rest of your post is about avoiding becoming red and accepting the consequences if you do, which doesn't contribute to issue we're discussing.)
[/quote]
Any opinions on what a group of lower level Greens should do when a Red comes and sits in the middle of their farming/gathering/chilling spot?
For example if a few Green players on the beach fishing, see a Red come up to them, doesn't even start fishing, just stands there.
The way it is designed now, the weird inconsistency in conditions where red can and can't fight back without extra penalty, makes me believe that this hasn't yet been very well thought through. We do know that "greens attacking reds and remaining greens" is still going to need testing to see what works and what doesn't, which seems to support my concern.
It has been "thought through" in practice of several years by Steven, because he played with this exact system and liked it.
If greens attack a red, unprovoked, then they act as combatants or bounty hunters, and their non-combatant status should be irrelevant, because they do, in fact, consent to PvP. The red's "corrupted" status doesn't go anywhere, and they will be penalized accordingly should they die, but this weird condition where reds can receive additional corruption for consentual PvP, seems just off.
Greens don't act as combatants in the situation of them attacking a red. They act as if they're killing a mob, because the system tells them "red = mob". You're looking at this rule outside of the rule itself.
It's like looking at the rule of "if you get hit you'll feel pain" and disagreeing with it just because you don't like it. Except with the game's case, you can just avoid participating in the game or avoid being on that side of the rules, while in the case of feeling pain irl - you kinda can't avoid it, unless you have a broken brain that doesn't register signals from your nerves.
Is it unfair that any green can just attack you? Of course. Was it unfair towards your victim that you just killed them w/o them fight back? Of course. Did you have a choice of not killing your victim and not getting into the "mob" state? Of course!
Any opinions on what a group of lower level Greens should do when a Red comes and sits in the middle of their farming/gathering/chilling spot?
For example if a few Green players on the beach fishing, see a Red come up to them, doesn't even start fishing, just stands there.
In the current system, or including the proposed change that makes aggressive greens turn purple to the red they're attacking?
Either? Both? I'm just trying to get an idea of where your concept of gameplay is, since we don't all have the same assumptions.
In your example of red just sitting there, are we to assume that he's planning something by going into a lower level area where there's a bunch of greens, or it's just a simplified example of a red happening to be in the vicinity of lower level greens, and it's unknown whether said red has or doesn't have ill intent towards greens around him?
In the current system, if greens want to:
get fat loot from red;
PvP red for fun;
increase red's corruption (and possibly come back for another round where red will have dampened stats and increased gear drop chance);
or all of the above
then they should attack red. Otherwise? Either ignore and hope red has no plans to murder greens, or get away, just to be safe.
In a system with proposed change, remove the 3rd point.
Any opinions on what a group of lower level Greens should do when a Red comes and sits in the middle of their farming/gathering/chilling spot?
For example if a few Green players on the beach fishing, see a Red come up to them, doesn't even start fishing, just stands there.
In the current system, or including the proposed change that makes aggressive greens turn purple to the red they're attacking?
Either? Both? I'm just trying to get an idea of where your concept of gameplay is, since we don't all have the same assumptions.
In your example of red just sitting there, are we to assume that he's planning something by going into a lower level area where there's a bunch of greens, or it's just a simplified example of a red happening to be in the vicinity of lower level greens, and it's unknown whether said red has or doesn't have ill intent towards greens around him?
In the current system, if greens want to:
get fat loot from red;
PvP red for fun;
increase red's corruption (and possibly come back for another round where red will have dampened stats and increased gear drop chance);
or all of the above
then they should attack red. Otherwise? Either ignore and hope red has no plans to murder greens, or get away, just to be safe.
In a system with proposed change, remove the 3rd point.
I am not saying that we need to assume anything related to it.
However, you touch on the main point. As the Green players, would it make sense to NOT assume that?
Greens don't act as combatants in the situation of them attacking a red. They act as if they're killing a mob, because the system tells them "red = mob". You're looking at this rule outside of the rule itself.
Yes, greens should feel free to attack a red, just like purples and BHs and even other reds should feel free to attack a red.
It's like looking at the rule of "if you get hit you'll feel pain" and disagreeing with it just because you don't like it. Except with the game's case, you can just avoid participating in the game or avoid being on that side of the rules, while in the case of feeling pain irl - you kinda can't avoid it, unless you have a broken brain that doesn't register signals from your nerves.
But we're not talking whether you could or should avoid going red. It's whether it makes sense for this special rule to exist where, against red, being an aggressive green has different rules than being an aggressive purple/BH. And if so, WHY? What purpose does it serve?
(A reminder that a green in these circumstances doesn't mean "innocent PvEer", they might be a PvPer for all we know, they just don't have a choice to flag up against a red.)
Is it unfair that any green can just attack you? Of course.
I disagree, I think it's fair that any green can attack a red, freely, red is a criminal after all. Being penalized for defending yourself, however, isn't fair in my book.
I am not saying that we need to assume anything related to it.
However, you touch on the main point. As the Green players, would it make sense to NOT assume that?
They can assume whatever they want, they're also free to attack the red. My proposal does not change that. The red should not be penalized for self-defense though.
Okay. So your main point is the, penalization for defending yourself.
Lets flip the perspective.
8 greens, just hanging out. 2 guys walk up.
One of the new guys attacks a members of camp greeny.
New guys purple. All 8 greens stay green...
New guy kills the first green, turns red.
Now that a line has been crossed...... should green get punished for self defence? This guy clearly is just going to kill them if they do nothing. But, to attack and turn purple give new guy number 2 free rain to kill them without going red.
They can assume whatever they want, they're also free to attack the red. My proposal does not change that. The red should not be penalized for self-defense though.
But again, you're looking at it outside of the game's rules. The rules state that killing a green gives you corruption. And they also state that fighting a red (mob) doesn't flag you as a combatant, keeping you green. So if the red then goes onto killing that green - he'll just get more corruption, just as the rules state.
The reason for that is the method of removing corruption and the system punishing you for having said corruption. The methods are "gain XP" or "die". Any player is free to help you with the "die" option. If you fight back against them - you're preventing them from enacting the system's desire to punish you. Which means you're trying to avoid said punishment.
And during that avoidance, the basic rules of gaining corruption and flagging stay the same. Killing greens gives corruption and greens attacking reds doesn't flag them. Which means that if you, as a red, kill greens that are trying to enact punishment onto you - you get more corruption. The rules of interaction haven't changed, your state has. The system sees you as a mob, so only BHs can flag against you, while everyone else can just attack and kill you w/o any repercussions. Iirc in L2 you could even lose your flagged status while fighting a red, because the process of fighting them didn't register as you being a "combatant" (@JamesSunderland@George_Black correct me if I'm misremembering).
The "self-defense" only works for greens and combatants, because their state hasn't crossed the threshold of rights given to any player. But the Reds have limited rights, with self-defense against greens not being one of them.
And just to reiterate, the "why" behind that rights limitation is "to punish you". That's all the reason the devs need tbh.
Greens don't act as combatants in the situation of them attacking a red. They act as if they're killing a mob, because the system tells them "red = mob". You're looking at this rule outside of the rule itself.
Yes, greens should feel free to attack a red, just like purples and BHs and even other reds should feel free to attack a red.
It's like looking at the rule of "if you get hit you'll feel pain" and disagreeing with it just because you don't like it. Except with the game's case, you can just avoid participating in the game or avoid being on that side of the rules, while in the case of feeling pain irl - you kinda can't avoid it, unless you have a broken brain that doesn't register signals from your nerves.
But we're not talking whether you could or should avoid going red. It's whether it makes sense for this special rule to exist where, against red, being an aggressive green has different rules than being an aggressive purple/BH. And if so, WHY? What purpose does it serve?
(A reminder that a green in these circumstances doesn't mean "innocent PvEer", they might be a PvPer for all we know, they just don't have a choice to flag up against a red.)
Is it unfair that any green can just attack you? Of course.
I disagree, I think it's fair that any green can attack a red, freely, red is a criminal after all. Being penalized for defending yourself, however, isn't fair in my book.
I am not saying that we need to assume anything related to it.
However, you touch on the main point. As the Green players, would it make sense to NOT assume that?
They can assume whatever they want, they're also free to attack the red. My proposal does not change that. The red should not be penalized for self-defense though.
Then let's try this, I'm not really trying to make you agree, just seeing where your thoughts are.
Greens fishing on a coast together, this is a 'non-threat space'. Like being in a park on a Sunday.
"Convicted murderer on the run, known to be wanted by the police, dead or alive" walks up to them and just stands around. Maybe waves. Maybe sets up their BBQ grill.
They feel unsafe now, perhaps? They remember the 'Dead or Alive' markers on the posters. Let's assume a system where they have some penalty for attacking at all. Specifically 'penalty will apply on the side of the Green if they attack'.
They decide to take the penalty and attack, the Red goes 'wtf I was just enjoying my park day, what's wrong with you people?' and defends themselves with their cleaver and bbq fork.
They should have called for the Police or a Bounty Hunter, right? Maybe all left the area if they were so afraid that this random person just grilling in the park was somehow a THREAT to them just because they randomly killed someone before.
If the Red was attacked by the Bounty Hunter, and killed the BH in 'self-defense', the Red gains no additional Corruption (idk why this is). If they kill any greens in self-defense, it's a problem.
You're missing one weird discrepancy here, I think. The entire design is for gameplay fun purposes, because the most sensible thing would be for the Red to accept death from a Bounty Hunter without fighting back, at worst, running away, because the Red should get more Corruption for killing the Bounty Hunter. A force of justice/police is coming to deliver it and the Red resists? Worse punishment.
So, if Intrepid were to change the rules to 'You don't get Corruption if Greens attack you first and you fight back and win since that's Consensual PvP on their part, but you get more Corruption for not letting Bounty Hunters just kill you since you're now resisting justice', would that be better?
Okay. So your main point is the, penalization for defending yourself.
Lets flip the perspective.
8 greens, just hanging out. 2 guys walk up.
One of the new guys attacks a members of camp greeny.
New guys purple. All 8 greens stay green...
New guy kills the first green, turns red.
Now that a line has been crossed...... should green get punished for self defence? This guy clearly is just going to kill them if they do nothing. But, to attack and turn purple give new guy number 2 free rain to kill them without going red.
Whats your take on this?
Hence in the proposal, a green attacking a red would only turn purple for the red he's attacking (just like bounty hunters appear as such to reds, only), not everyone. So to the new guy number 2 they would all be green, still.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Greens don't act as combatants in the situation of them attacking a red. They act as if they're killing a mob, because the system tells them "red = mob". You're looking at this rule outside of the rule itself.
hleV wants the rule to be that reds are treated like criminals, but... that is not the way it works.
red = mob
Okay. So your main point is the, penalization for defending yourself.
Lets flip the perspective.
8 greens, just hanging out. 2 guys walk up.
One of the new guys attacks a members of camp greeny.
New guys purple. All 8 greens stay green...
New guy kills the first green, turns red.
Now that a line has been crossed...... should green get punished for self defence? This guy clearly is just going to kill them if they do nothing. But, to attack and turn purple give new guy number 2 free rain to kill them without going red.
Whats your take on this?
Hence in the proposal, a green attacking a red would only turn purple for the red he's attacking (just like bounty hunters appear as such to reds, only), not everyone. So to the new guy number 2 they would all be green, still.
Okay, greens who hit reds first are "special purple"
What do we do with the green healers healing the special purple green attacking the red guy?
What do we do with green bards who walk too close to a "special purple" green attacking a red guy, and a radial buff effects them?
What do we do with a summoner's pets that are in the same party? When a single green from that party attacks a red, and the summons pets auto engage the red, is the unrelated green summoner now special purple too?
When the red is flagged against a green, and their aoe's can hit all greens. Is only the greens who hit him first special purple? If the others just crowd around the special purple green until they get clipped by an aoe, are they free to stay green while attacking?
Sorry i keep adding to this....
I want answers to these questions, and i want to point out that these questions arent necessarily obvious thoughts. Saying, greens can attack red without flagging. Makes things pretty clear, and simple. Drawing all the lines needed to change that is a system that isnt so intuitive to understand anymore.
If the Red was attacked by the Bounty Hunter, and killed the BH in 'self-defense', the Red gains no additional Corruption (idk why this is). If they kill any greens in self-defense, it's a problem.
The BHs flag themselves up for pvp against the Corrupted. I see this as a way to counter groups with designated Reds. The corrupted can still fight back w/o further corruption because they're fighting against a flagged person (flagged from their pov), while their friends can only heal/buff them, because if they'll attack the BH (a green from their pov) - they'll get corruption themselves.
It's an inverse of roles. A Red is a ffa for greens, while a BH is a ffa for Reds. With the combatant state being the golden middle from all sides.
And they also state that fighting a red (mob) doesn't flag you as a combatant, keeping you green.
A corrupted player is not a mob, and the rules for corrupted and mobs aren't the same. Don't go down to Dygz's level of absurdity. Mobs don't receive additional corruption (so stat dampening and higher chances of gear drops) for every green they kill, so the rules are clearly different.
if Intrepid were to change the rules to 'You don't get Corruption if Greens attack you first and you fight back and win since that's Consensual PvP on their part, but you get more Corruption for not letting Bounty Hunters just kill you since you're now resisting justice', would that be better?
No consentual PvP should ever be additionally penalized. Bounty Hunters aren't there for justice, they're there for reward. Real world examples don't work here neither, because random consentual battle to the death in real world is not allowed, but in AoC is. So no, it wouldn't be better, in fact that might be even less fun for BHs if they don't get a challenge of red fighting back.
Okay, greens who hit reds first are "special purple"
What do we do with the green healers healing the special purple green attacking the red guy?
What do we do with green bards who walk too close to a "special purple" green attacking a red guy, and a radial buff effects them?
What do we do with a summoner's pets that are in the same party? When a single green from that party attacks a red, and the summons pets auto engage the red, is the unrelated green summoner now special purple too?
When the red is flagged against a green, and their aoe's can hit all greens. Is only the greens who hit him first special purple? If the others just crowd around the special purple green until they get clipped by an aoe, are they free to stay green while attacking?
Sorry i keep adding to this....
I want answers to these questions, and i want to point out that these questions arent necessarily obvious thoughts. Saying, greens can attack red without flagging. Makes things pretty clear, and simple. Drawing all the lines needed to change that is a system that isnt so intuitive to understand anymore.
The PvP system is already designed to recognize who's hostile and who's not through their actions, such as healing, etc., so the same logic would be apply to aggressive greens attacking reds, and whomever helps them. As for how specifically it works, you'll either find it on the wiki or it's still unknown.
Okay, greens who hit reds first are "special purple"
What do we do with the green healers healing the special purple green attacking the red guy?
What do we do with green bards who walk too close to a "special purple" green attacking a red guy, and a radial buff effects them?
What do we do with a summoner's pets that are in the same party? When a single green from that party attacks a red, and the summons pets auto engage the red, is the unrelated green summoner now special purple too?
When the red is flagged against a green, and their aoe's can hit all greens. Is only the greens who hit him first special purple? If the others just crowd around the special purple green until they get clipped by an aoe, are they free to stay green while attacking?
Sorry i keep adding to this....
I want answers to these questions, and i want to point out that these questions arent necessarily obvious thoughts. Saying, greens can attack red without flagging. Makes things pretty clear, and simple. Drawing all the lines needed to change that is a system that isnt so intuitive to understand anymore.
The PvP system is already designed to recognize who's hostile and who's not through their actions, such as healing, etc., so the same logic would be apply to aggressive greens attacking reds, and whomever helps them. As for how specifically it works, you'll either find it on the wiki or it's still unknown.
1. Dygz is right, through the lore becomeing corrupted is a player becoming a monster. And the game and systems treat you as a mob. The aditional curruption gain is an addition to that system to balance antigreifing.
2. "The PvP system is already designed to recognize who's hostile and who's not through their actions, such as healing, etc., so the same logic would be apply to aggressive greens attacking reds, and whomever helps them. As for how specifically it works, you'll either find it on the wiki or it's still unknown"
In the current pvp system you cant hit a green without flagging them specifically. Reds can hit greens as they have flagged to do so... so if greens swarm your target until you hit them, can they retaliate remaining green in your purposed system, or not?
if Intrepid were to change the rules to 'You don't get Corruption if Greens attack you first and you fight back and win since that's Consensual PvP on their part, but you get more Corruption for not letting Bounty Hunters just kill you since you're now resisting justice', would that be better?
No consentual PvP should ever be additionally penalized. Bounty Hunters aren't there for justice, they're there for reward. Real world examples don't work here neither, because random consentual battle to the death in real world is not allowed, but in AoC is. So no, it wouldn't be better, in fact that might be even less fun for BHs if they don't get a challenge of red fighting back.
Ok, but if SOMEONE does not kill the Red, there's no justice. Justice needs an agent. Either Bounty Hunters are that agent, or Greens are that agent.
Pick one, I personally don't care which. Since fighting the agent is 'fighting against justice', you get additional Corruption for resisting.
Intrepid chooses that Greens are the agent of Justice and Bounty Hunters are rewarded by coin, as you pointed out.
If you would like there to be an additional state that is 'JusticeBound' who you cannot kill without additional Corruption because the aim of Justice is to kill the Red, that's also fine, people can sign up for that. But for justice to happen, the Red Must Die.
I think that hleV is trying bring the common sense in real world n to game discussion.
But the point hleV trying to fight for is not exist, if you think this way that in Verra at default you kill a green player and he don't fight back you are not just a criminal like how human rights work in a nice country, the moment you commit to kill a green player you become a monster a mob that everyone can kill you without hesitate, it's just corruption system is meant to protect green player and try to not be abused as a system at the same time(is it enough to prevent from abuse I don't know and that's why need to test it.)
It's just like "Ape don't kill ape." in Planet of the Apes, you kill a player then you are a monster until you pay the debt.
If you want prevent green players using their role to abuse the system or kill red player to make red player's day bad, just make green player's death penalty higher and stacks to meet the red player's death penalty if green player keep trying to kill red player and dead.
If you want when you as a green player willing to kill a red player in front of you with a purple player's penalty, just make sure Intrepid allows player sign up as bounty hunter with just one click no matter what.
Just that simple.
UPDATE: the point is not about you agree PvP when you kill, the point is these is the consequence you need to face when to commit to kill. The other things are not "is it too much punish for red", they are "is it too less punish for green".
This convo will literarily go on forever, you guys are going to to in circles. You agree and disagree at the same time that the system is unfair for the red as it is designed to be like that.
The point he is saying are right, every unfair element that will make people avoid flagging to kill someone are true, and it isn't an effective way to do so in certain situations leading to your death instantly.
I understand you are saying this person killed a green and the 5 other greens look at him unable to give punishment or get a free kill as some sort of retribution. Feeling you are helpless to watch someone die and want the greens to feel empowered instead.
The sole issue he has is the increased corruption score so it feels silly to kill more greens. Though I'm guessing this is intent on the game so a red can't just kill everyone if they all try to have a go at him without serious consequence.
Simply saying the person is a mob doesn't do anything to explain the situation on why the system is the way the system is and that is why you all will keep going in circles. It is better to explain reasons or why you think that is the case from a design perspective as I tried to do earlier.
1. Dygz is right, through the lore becomeing corrupted is a player becoming a monster. And the game and systems treat you as a mob. The aditional curruption gain is an addition to that system to balance antigreifing.
I couldn't care less about the lore. If greens can freely attack reds and remain greens, that's not anti-griefing. As a griefing counter-measure, it should only apply when greens are being attacked, and not fighting back.
so if greens swarm your target until you hit them, can they retaliate remaining green in your purposed system, or not?
Of course not. In the case of consentual PvP, the system must not keep treating you as the victim.
As i said. In the current system you cant hit greens unless you flag them specifically. If i shoot a fireball at you, and you are green, unless i have specificly flagged you as my target, you cannot be hit by my aoes. In the alpha 1 it was a 3 button flag to target another player specifically. While red your attacks hit all players in the aoe.
In your purposed system, where the only way a green can attack a red is to flag. Will prevent "world reacting" to a currupted player. As a green, who has no chance of winning against a red in certsin situation. My only option is to just die. So if a red come by killing everyone, i just get to resign myself to dying. I cant play the game. I cant defend myself, i cant collect things, i cant travel. Because the red guy just gets to kill me, since i dont feel i have a chance to win.
I understand, that the additional curruption from fighting greens who dont have to flag against you, sucks... but at the same time, going red in itself isnt a punishment. You havnt been punished yet. You're just red. Until you die, or spend time removing your curruption, you havnt been punished at all. Im not saying greens need to be safe guarded at all costs. Im saying the risk is already worth the reward in my opinion. I dont see a need for a change. I think you not being up to the task to kill every green nearby or escape just means it sucks to suck.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Right. So...you understand... you just don't care.
Nothing can be said to make you care, so...
What is the point of this discussion...?
As i said. In the current system you cant hit greens unless you flag them specifically. If i shoot a fireball at you, and you are green, unless i have specificly flagged you as my target, you cannot be hit by my aoes. In the alpha 1 it was a 3 button flag to target another player specifically. While red your attacks hit all players in the aoe.
We're literally talking about whether greens that consent to PvP should remain being treated as victims, but apparently poor greens (regardless if they're PvPers or not) should be allowed to grief a red into oblivion because god forbid that red had a reason to PK one player. And you're asking me specifics on a technical level, as though if I don't come up with ways for the developers to correct all those systems that are apparently set in stone, my proposal can absolutely not work. Is that what this is?
In your purposed system, where the only way a green can attack a red is to flag. Will prevent "world reacting" to a currupted player.
It wouldn't change a thing about "world reacting" to a corrupted player, it just wouldn't be abusable from green side because red is penalized for fighting them back.
As a green, who has no chance of winning against a red in certsin situation. My only option is to just die. So if a red come by killing everyone, i just get to resign myself to dying. I cant play the game. I cant defend myself, i cant collect things, i cant travel. Because the red guy just gets to kill me, since i dont feel i have a chance to win.
How does my proposal make it any different than what it already is? Do you just want greens to have an easy time, by red not fighting back?
I understand, that the additional curruption from fighting greens who dont have to flag against you, sucks... but at the same time, going red in itself isnt a punishment. You havnt been punished yet. You're just red. Until you die, or spend time removing your curruption, you havnt been punished at all.
Correct, and red defending themselves and killing a green in the process doesn't change that.
Im not saying greens need to be safe guarded at all costs. Im saying the risk is already worth the reward in my opinion. I dont see a need for a change. I think you not being up to the task to kill every green nearby or escape just means it sucks to suck.
And I don't think that's a good system design. It wouldn't be any worse, FOR ANYONE, if greens consenting to PvP weren't treated as victims.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Comments
And that's not even counting any potential self-heals your target might have.
Easier to hope that almost all CC does minor damage before applying its effect.
I'm arguing that "for no good reason" part, specifically. Again if reds are ought to be additionally penalized for PvP, it shouldn't be limited to just vs greens. I probably wouldn't like that (I'm a strong advocate of non-penalized self-defense, after all), but at least the system would make sense, screaming loud and clear that "don't become red if you wish to continue PvPing without repercussions". The way it is designed now, the weird inconsistency in conditions where red can and can't fight back without extra penalty, makes me believe that this hasn't yet been very well thought through. We do know that "greens attacking reds and remaining greens" is still going to need testing to see what works and what doesn't, which seems to support my concern.
If greens attack a red, unprovoked, then they act as combatants or bounty hunters, and their non-combatant status should be irrelevant, because they do, in fact, consent to PvP. The red's "corrupted" status doesn't go anywhere, and they will be penalized accordingly should they die, but this weird condition where reds can receive additional corruption for consentual PvP, seems just off.
(The rest of your post is about avoiding becoming red and accepting the consequences if you do, which doesn't contribute to issue we're discussing.)
Any opinions on what a group of lower level Greens should do when a Red comes and sits in the middle of their farming/gathering/chilling spot?
For example if a few Green players on the beach fishing, see a Red come up to them, doesn't even start fishing, just stands there.
Either? Both? I'm just trying to get an idea of where your concept of gameplay is, since we don't all have the same assumptions.
It's like looking at the rule of "if you get hit you'll feel pain" and disagreeing with it just because you don't like it. Except with the game's case, you can just avoid participating in the game or avoid being on that side of the rules, while in the case of feeling pain irl - you kinda can't avoid it, unless you have a broken brain that doesn't register signals from your nerves.
Is it unfair that any green can just attack you? Of course. Was it unfair towards your victim that you just killed them w/o them fight back? Of course. Did you have a choice of not killing your victim and not getting into the "mob" state? Of course!
In the current system, if greens want to:
- get fat loot from red;
- PvP red for fun;
- increase red's corruption (and possibly come back for another round where red will have dampened stats and increased gear drop chance);
- or all of the above
then they should attack red. Otherwise? Either ignore and hope red has no plans to murder greens, or get away, just to be safe.In a system with proposed change, remove the 3rd point.
I am not saying that we need to assume anything related to it.
However, you touch on the main point. As the Green players, would it make sense to NOT assume that?
But we're not talking whether you could or should avoid going red. It's whether it makes sense for this special rule to exist where, against red, being an aggressive green has different rules than being an aggressive purple/BH. And if so, WHY? What purpose does it serve?
(A reminder that a green in these circumstances doesn't mean "innocent PvEer", they might be a PvPer for all we know, they just don't have a choice to flag up against a red.)
I disagree, I think it's fair that any green can attack a red, freely, red is a criminal after all. Being penalized for defending yourself, however, isn't fair in my book.
They can assume whatever they want, they're also free to attack the red. My proposal does not change that. The red should not be penalized for self-defense though.
Lets flip the perspective.
8 greens, just hanging out. 2 guys walk up.
One of the new guys attacks a members of camp greeny.
New guys purple. All 8 greens stay green...
New guy kills the first green, turns red.
Now that a line has been crossed...... should green get punished for self defence? This guy clearly is just going to kill them if they do nothing. But, to attack and turn purple give new guy number 2 free rain to kill them without going red.
Whats your take on this?
The reason for that is the method of removing corruption and the system punishing you for having said corruption. The methods are "gain XP" or "die". Any player is free to help you with the "die" option. If you fight back against them - you're preventing them from enacting the system's desire to punish you. Which means you're trying to avoid said punishment.
And during that avoidance, the basic rules of gaining corruption and flagging stay the same. Killing greens gives corruption and greens attacking reds doesn't flag them. Which means that if you, as a red, kill greens that are trying to enact punishment onto you - you get more corruption. The rules of interaction haven't changed, your state has. The system sees you as a mob, so only BHs can flag against you, while everyone else can just attack and kill you w/o any repercussions. Iirc in L2 you could even lose your flagged status while fighting a red, because the process of fighting them didn't register as you being a "combatant" (@JamesSunderland @George_Black correct me if I'm misremembering).
The "self-defense" only works for greens and combatants, because their state hasn't crossed the threshold of rights given to any player. But the Reds have limited rights, with self-defense against greens not being one of them.
And just to reiterate, the "why" behind that rights limitation is "to punish you". That's all the reason the devs need tbh.
Then let's try this, I'm not really trying to make you agree, just seeing where your thoughts are.
Greens fishing on a coast together, this is a 'non-threat space'. Like being in a park on a Sunday.
"Convicted murderer on the run, known to be wanted by the police, dead or alive" walks up to them and just stands around. Maybe waves. Maybe sets up their BBQ grill.
They feel unsafe now, perhaps? They remember the 'Dead or Alive' markers on the posters. Let's assume a system where they have some penalty for attacking at all. Specifically 'penalty will apply on the side of the Green if they attack'.
They decide to take the penalty and attack, the Red goes 'wtf I was just enjoying my park day, what's wrong with you people?' and defends themselves with their cleaver and bbq fork.
They should have called for the Police or a Bounty Hunter, right? Maybe all left the area if they were so afraid that this random person just grilling in the park was somehow a THREAT to them just because they randomly killed someone before.
If the Red was attacked by the Bounty Hunter, and killed the BH in 'self-defense', the Red gains no additional Corruption (idk why this is). If they kill any greens in self-defense, it's a problem.
You're missing one weird discrepancy here, I think. The entire design is for gameplay fun purposes, because the most sensible thing would be for the Red to accept death from a Bounty Hunter without fighting back, at worst, running away, because the Red should get more Corruption for killing the Bounty Hunter. A force of justice/police is coming to deliver it and the Red resists? Worse punishment.
So, if Intrepid were to change the rules to 'You don't get Corruption if Greens attack you first and you fight back and win since that's Consensual PvP on their part, but you get more Corruption for not letting Bounty Hunters just kill you since you're now resisting justice', would that be better?
red = mob
Okay, greens who hit reds first are "special purple"
What do we do with the green healers healing the special purple green attacking the red guy?
What do we do with green bards who walk too close to a "special purple" green attacking a red guy, and a radial buff effects them?
What do we do with a summoner's pets that are in the same party? When a single green from that party attacks a red, and the summons pets auto engage the red, is the unrelated green summoner now special purple too?
When the red is flagged against a green, and their aoe's can hit all greens. Is only the greens who hit him first special purple? If the others just crowd around the special purple green until they get clipped by an aoe, are they free to stay green while attacking?
Sorry i keep adding to this....
I want answers to these questions, and i want to point out that these questions arent necessarily obvious thoughts. Saying, greens can attack red without flagging. Makes things pretty clear, and simple. Drawing all the lines needed to change that is a system that isnt so intuitive to understand anymore.
It's an inverse of roles. A Red is a ffa for greens, while a BH is a ffa for Reds. With the combatant state being the golden middle from all sides.
A corrupted player is not a mob, and the rules for corrupted and mobs aren't the same. Don't go down to Dygz's level of absurdity. Mobs don't receive additional corruption (so stat dampening and higher chances of gear drops) for every green they kill, so the rules are clearly different.
No consentual PvP should ever be additionally penalized. Bounty Hunters aren't there for justice, they're there for reward. Real world examples don't work here neither, because random consentual battle to the death in real world is not allowed, but in AoC is. So no, it wouldn't be better, in fact that might be even less fun for BHs if they don't get a challenge of red fighting back.
The PvP system is already designed to recognize who's hostile and who's not through their actions, such as healing, etc., so the same logic would be apply to aggressive greens attacking reds, and whomever helps them. As for how specifically it works, you'll either find it on the wiki or it's still unknown.
1. Dygz is right, through the lore becomeing corrupted is a player becoming a monster. And the game and systems treat you as a mob. The aditional curruption gain is an addition to that system to balance antigreifing.
2. "The PvP system is already designed to recognize who's hostile and who's not through their actions, such as healing, etc., so the same logic would be apply to aggressive greens attacking reds, and whomever helps them. As for how specifically it works, you'll either find it on the wiki or it's still unknown"
In the current pvp system you cant hit a green without flagging them specifically. Reds can hit greens as they have flagged to do so... so if greens swarm your target until you hit them, can they retaliate remaining green in your purposed system, or not?
Ok, but if SOMEONE does not kill the Red, there's no justice. Justice needs an agent. Either Bounty Hunters are that agent, or Greens are that agent.
Pick one, I personally don't care which. Since fighting the agent is 'fighting against justice', you get additional Corruption for resisting.
Intrepid chooses that Greens are the agent of Justice and Bounty Hunters are rewarded by coin, as you pointed out.
If you would like there to be an additional state that is 'JusticeBound' who you cannot kill without additional Corruption because the aim of Justice is to kill the Red, that's also fine, people can sign up for that. But for justice to happen, the Red Must Die.
But the point hleV trying to fight for is not exist, if you think this way that in Verra at default you kill a green player and he don't fight back you are not just a criminal like how human rights work in a nice country, the moment you commit to kill a green player you become a monster a mob that everyone can kill you without hesitate, it's just corruption system is meant to protect green player and try to not be abused as a system at the same time(is it enough to prevent from abuse I don't know and that's why need to test it.)
It's just like "Ape don't kill ape." in Planet of the Apes, you kill a player then you are a monster until you pay the debt.
If you want prevent green players using their role to abuse the system or kill red player to make red player's day bad, just make green player's death penalty higher and stacks to meet the red player's death penalty if green player keep trying to kill red player and dead.
If you want when you as a green player willing to kill a red player in front of you with a purple player's penalty, just make sure Intrepid allows player sign up as bounty hunter with just one click no matter what.
Just that simple.
UPDATE: the point is not about you agree PvP when you kill, the point is these is the consequence you need to face when to commit to kill. The other things are not "is it too much punish for red", they are "is it too less punish for green".
↓Good youtube channel to learn things about creating games.↓
Masahiro Sakurai on Creating Games:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1DvRY5PyHHt3KN9ghunuw
The point he is saying are right, every unfair element that will make people avoid flagging to kill someone are true, and it isn't an effective way to do so in certain situations leading to your death instantly.
I understand you are saying this person killed a green and the 5 other greens look at him unable to give punishment or get a free kill as some sort of retribution. Feeling you are helpless to watch someone die and want the greens to feel empowered instead.
The sole issue he has is the increased corruption score so it feels silly to kill more greens. Though I'm guessing this is intent on the game so a red can't just kill everyone if they all try to have a go at him without serious consequence.
Simply saying the person is a mob doesn't do anything to explain the situation on why the system is the way the system is and that is why you all will keep going in circles. It is better to explain reasons or why you think that is the case from a design perspective as I tried to do earlier.
... What?
Of course not. In the case of consentual PvP, the system must not keep treating you as the victim.
Talk from a design perspective don't use RL examples to explain reason for a game.
As i said. In the current system you cant hit greens unless you flag them specifically. If i shoot a fireball at you, and you are green, unless i have specificly flagged you as my target, you cannot be hit by my aoes. In the alpha 1 it was a 3 button flag to target another player specifically. While red your attacks hit all players in the aoe.
In your purposed system, where the only way a green can attack a red is to flag. Will prevent "world reacting" to a currupted player. As a green, who has no chance of winning against a red in certsin situation. My only option is to just die. So if a red come by killing everyone, i just get to resign myself to dying. I cant play the game. I cant defend myself, i cant collect things, i cant travel. Because the red guy just gets to kill me, since i dont feel i have a chance to win.
I understand, that the additional curruption from fighting greens who dont have to flag against you, sucks... but at the same time, going red in itself isnt a punishment. You havnt been punished yet. You're just red. Until you die, or spend time removing your curruption, you havnt been punished at all. Im not saying greens need to be safe guarded at all costs. Im saying the risk is already worth the reward in my opinion. I dont see a need for a change. I think you not being up to the task to kill every green nearby or escape just means it sucks to suck.
Nothing can be said to make you care, so...
What is the point of this discussion...?
It wouldn't change a thing about "world reacting" to a corrupted player, it just wouldn't be abusable from green side because red is penalized for fighting them back.
How does my proposal make it any different than what it already is? Do you just want greens to have an easy time, by red not fighting back?
Correct, and red defending themselves and killing a green in the process doesn't change that.
And I don't think that's a good system design. It wouldn't be any worse, FOR ANYONE, if greens consenting to PvP weren't treated as victims.