Maximus_Meridius wrote: » I can imagine lots of players wanting to explore and find out the experience on the island, so it should bring enough penalty to disincentivize hordes of players being drawn too it. Maybe no level progression while being on the island.
Strevi wrote: » The biggest weakness of the corruption system and such algorithms is that they assume players are the same and Steven can find a magic number to balance the game well. What if the player being hunted and killed was having fun himself too? What if he was actually friend with the hunter and they agreed to this activity?
FuryBladeborne wrote: » Strevi wrote: » The biggest weakness of the corruption system and such algorithms is that they assume players are the same and Steven can find a magic number to balance the game well. What if the player being hunted and killed was having fun himself too? What if he was actually friend with the hunter and they agreed to this activity? If both players want to fight with no corruption, all they have to do is hit one another and they are willing combatants that do not gain corruption. This is regardless of who hit first or who dies or even level differences.
Strevi wrote: » Maximus_Meridius wrote: » I can imagine lots of players wanting to explore and find out the experience on the island, so it should bring enough penalty to disincentivize hordes of players being drawn too it. Maybe no level progression while being on the island. If you want to prevent PvP with boredom, why work so much, to implement an island and boring quests? You can just make a black screen with a counter and only when that expires, the player can play again. You can even make it a mini game to be sure they stay in front of the screen. The purpose of the game is to be fun. Else players leave the game completely in such places and after a few months if they have a tentative to return, they may log out again and never return. If the premise is that the player caused unfun / grief to other players, then the game should prevent that somehow. For the time being, the mechanics which will do that are the corruption and the bounty hunters. The problem is that no matter how the corruption is balanced (or your rule to send them to the prison island), some will complain that is either too harsh or to lenient. What do you do then? You tell players to find another game? The biggest weakness of the corruption system and such algorithms is that they assume players are the same and Steven can find a magic number to balance the game well. What if the player being hunted and killed was having fun himself too? What if he was actually friend with the hunter and they agreed to this activity? Pain thresholdThe intensity at which a stimulus begins to evoke pain varies from individual to individual and for a given individual over time. I think Steven realized this and will make the corruption strong enough so the game will feel like a PvE game and adds these deep ocean and treasure hunting auto flag PvP areas. Then players will decide how they feel and if they want to enter or not.
granthor wrote: » Based on my time in the game UO, aka Ultima Online, where you had a PKer system where you went from grey to red. Grey being your open to attacks cause you killed someone or stole from someone, too red where you are just a killer, and you can enter any towns without being killed by guards. Not sure if this topic was talked about, but I was thinking, why not have a town for the killers? If not a town, then a caravan type, one they can be setup in hidden locations, and can grown to a level 2 or 3 only. This town needs to be one that can be taken down, and could be relocated to a different hidden location. One only known by a few PKers. A safe place for them to call home, and where they can sell or buy goods as needed. Think of it as an outlaw town, one that could be moved after a day or two. A few tents and shacks and this can be a nice place for the villain type players. What do you think? Of course these type of camp towns wouldn't be allowed to be setup close to regular ones. This is just a though, one I am floating out there, to see if others like it or not. So what do you think? Please express yourself.
Maximus_Meridius wrote: » Strevi wrote: » Maximus_Meridius wrote: » I can imagine lots of players wanting to explore and find out the experience on the island, so it should bring enough penalty to disincentivize hordes of players being drawn too it. Maybe no level progression while being on the island. If you want to prevent PvP with boredom, why work so much, to implement an island and boring quests? You can just make a black screen with a counter and only when that expires, the player can play again. You can even make it a mini game to be sure they stay in front of the screen. The purpose of the game is to be fun. Else players leave the game completely in such places and after a few months if they have a tentative to return, they may log out again and never return. If the premise is that the player caused unfun / grief to other players, then the game should prevent that somehow. For the time being, the mechanics which will do that are the corruption and the bounty hunters. The problem is that no matter how the corruption is balanced (or your rule to send them to the prison island), some will complain that is either too harsh or to lenient. What do you do then? You tell players to find another game? The biggest weakness of the corruption system and such algorithms is that they assume players are the same and Steven can find a magic number to balance the game well. What if the player being hunted and killed was having fun himself too? What if he was actually friend with the hunter and they agreed to this activity? Pain thresholdThe intensity at which a stimulus begins to evoke pain varies from individual to individual and for a given individual over time. I think Steven realized this and will make the corruption strong enough so the game will feel like a PvE game and adds these deep ocean and treasure hunting auto flag PvP areas. Then players will decide how they feel and if they want to enter or not. Unfortunately, a whole lot of assumptions that I believe I didn't hinted too. A shame for the amount of words you put into it. Why not at least try a bit more to understand the idea? Maybe asking if you're not sure. For your info, it doesnt feel good to me if you trash the idea like this, especially noting you made multiple faulty assumptions reflecting an unwillingness to even trying to understand. Do with it as you will; and you will I can imagine.
Maximus_Meridius wrote: » Btw, I don't get what you mean with corruption balancing being a problem because all players are treated the same within the algorithm.
Maximus_Meridius wrote: » Isn't it so that if friends would want to pvp they could both flag for it; formally in-game agree?
Maximus_Meridius wrote: » On the other side; whilst someone grieving will become corrupted, the player unwantingly being attacked wil not isn't it? I don't see how the already proposed corruption system treats players the same way.
Maximus_Meridius wrote: » Also, imo there will always be players not liking a game and leaving. More the norm than a problem I believe. In the end, the game will be what it will be; ultimately decided on by Steven and the Intrepid team. Like Steven said; it isnt going to be for everyone anyways. I really already like the corruption system as it was presented and was only sharing some idea/fantasy on maybe how it could be expanded by adding some lore/depth to corruption mechanics.
Strevi wrote: » I don't want a PvE game with potential PvP which nobody uses.
Strevi wrote: » I want to be attacked against my will, even when I do not expect it.
Strevi wrote: » FuryBladeborne wrote: » Strevi wrote: » The biggest weakness of the corruption system and such algorithms is that they assume players are the same and Steven can find a magic number to balance the game well. What if the player being hunted and killed was having fun himself too? What if he was actually friend with the hunter and they agreed to this activity? If both players want to fight with no corruption, all they have to do is hit one another and they are willing combatants that do not gain corruption. This is regardless of who hit first or who dies or even level differences. So you say that opt-in PvP is better? Your argument is what is used on New World forums too: "If you want pvp just set the flag on"
FuryBladeborne wrote: » Strevi wrote: » FuryBladeborne wrote: » Strevi wrote: » The biggest weakness of the corruption system and such algorithms is that they assume players are the same and Steven can find a magic number to balance the game well. What if the player being hunted and killed was having fun himself too? What if he was actually friend with the hunter and they agreed to this activity? If both players want to fight with no corruption, all they have to do is hit one another and they are willing combatants that do not gain corruption. This is regardless of who hit first or who dies or even level differences. So you say that opt-in PvP is better? Your argument is what is used on New World forums too: "If you want pvp just set the flag on" I was actually responding to the specific statement "What if the player being hunted and killed was having fun himself too? What if he was actually friend with the hunter and they agreed to this activity?" to point out that those players are uninhibited from fighting one another by Ashes always on PVP and corruption system.
Atama wrote: » bigepeen wrote: » Atama wrote: » Toxic gameplay, which PKing is, will make people not want to play the game. So corruption discourages that behavior. PKing isn't toxic. It's repeatedly PKing for no reason other than to grief someone that is toxic. The corruption system is there to make us consider whether it's worth it to PK someone rather than just PKing everyone for no reason. As a way to play a game, it's toxic. If you do it now and then (as AoC's corruption system will probably restrict how often you can get away with it) it is fine. If you play a game just to attack people who aren't interested in PvP or have no chance in a fight, you are a toxic player. Anyone who wants to play a game who removes that restriction is someone who wants to engage in toxic play, and it's no surprise those kinds of games don't last.
bigepeen wrote: » Atama wrote: » Toxic gameplay, which PKing is, will make people not want to play the game. So corruption discourages that behavior. PKing isn't toxic. It's repeatedly PKing for no reason other than to grief someone that is toxic. The corruption system is there to make us consider whether it's worth it to PK someone rather than just PKing everyone for no reason.
Atama wrote: » Toxic gameplay, which PKing is, will make people not want to play the game. So corruption discourages that behavior.
Depraved wrote: » Atama wrote: » bigepeen wrote: » Atama wrote: » Toxic gameplay, which PKing is, will make people not want to play the game. So corruption discourages that behavior. PKing isn't toxic. It's repeatedly PKing for no reason other than to grief someone that is toxic. The corruption system is there to make us consider whether it's worth it to PK someone rather than just PKing everyone for no reason. As a way to play a game, it's toxic. If you do it now and then (as AoC's corruption system will probably restrict how often you can get away with it) it is fine. If you play a game just to attack people who aren't interested in PvP or have no chance in a fight, you are a toxic player. Anyone who wants to play a game who removes that restriction is someone who wants to engage in toxic play, and it's no surprise those kinds of games don't last. I cant read your mind. how I'm I supposed to know you don't want to pvp until I attack you? what if I just rng crit and 1 shot you? how I'm I supposed to know you had no chance until we fight? what about a castle siege, should we not steam roll our opponents because they have no chance of winning and that's toxic? i also don't consent you attacking me while I'm transporting goods using the caravan system, because I don't want to pvp. you are toxic! what about me running towards a tree or a mining node and you teleporting and taking it away from me? i didn't consent to that. toxic! or you coming to where I'm gaming with a ranged character and killing the mobs before my tank can get close and kill them. that's griefing!!!! toxiccc what if I'm playing league and I have a weak early jungler. you invading me with lee sin and killing me is toxic cuz I have no chance!!!
Jhoren wrote: » Potentially I can see someone setting up a PK friendly tavern/freehold, if the game lets the owners set permission for corrupted players to interact with any NPCs. However, the location would soon be known, and the place would be swarming with bounty hunters and green players hoping to get an item drop. And that's really the thing here, it just won't work with the current system to have a PK friendly town, and I don't really want the system to change. At least not before it's been tested.
akabear wrote: » Still like the idea of micro areas/places on the map a pk`er can lurk in that is not on the BH`s map. Like the troll in three billy goat`s gruff! Under a bridge off the map, in a small cave off the map. Not a lot of places but perhaps a few places scattered across the map, just to provide a bit of spice!
