Should there be an outlaw town for Pkers?

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

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

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

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

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

So what do you think? Please express yourself.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Nova_terra

Dygz wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Expect the tech for Ashes to be more advanced than a game which released 20 years earlier.

I'm not talking about the backend and all the invisible systems the players cant see. I'm talking about the front end and all the systems the players can see

allowing people to see wether they are above or below you has nothing to do with the available technology. its a design choice

I don't know why you brought up backend.
Expect the Ashes mini-map to show what is underground since that is possible with modern tech - rather than expecting the minimap to be limited to the tech available when L2 released.
Makes no sense to have an Underrealm and not be able to track what's there via the mini-map - unless there's no tech to support that feature.

Part of me really enjoyed the SWG approach where you could find/see the cave/underrealm entrance and then the map populated when you entered. Now again this is 20 yr old tech so I'd expect it to be better but I liked the "direction" of that a lot.

Dygz

Yes. I expect it will at least be that.
And very likely better.

superhero6785

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

This is maybe the 4th or 5th thread on this over the years. Corruption is not meant to be a reward. It is a punishment. All stick, no carrot is what they have sold it as to those coming into the game worried about non-consensual pvp. If they start changing it for niche players and cut the nuts off the punishment aspect, then it will go poorly as it has in other places.

There obviously has to be SOME carrot for corruption, other wise they'd just remove the ability to attack Greens altogether. The "carrot" being - "Hey, you want this farming spot all to yourself? Is the extra experience you'll get by killing them worth being corrupted to you? Then go for it!"

The "no carrot" argument is that there won't be a deliberate incentive to being corrupted, but that doesn't mean the players can't make their own incentives based on their own risk/reward tolerance.

With that said - I'm totally on board with the corrupted players of any given server coming to an agreement to use one of the nodes as a "safe haven" for corrupted players. In game rules would permit anyone to attack and kill each other. They would only be governed by their own trust in one another. That would probably require Town Guards be entirely decided by the mayor and paid for by taxes. A "corrupted node" would have to forgo any guards as they'd immediately start attacking everyone. Not having any guards is also one of the risks the node would have to incur. If there are any open world events where a node is raided, the players would be wholly responsible for defending it. Bounty Hunters would also know exactly where to hang out and collect bounties. These all sound like perfectly reasonable trade-offs if there's enough corrupted players on a server to maintain a corrupted node.

Strevi

NiKr wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

what is a shitty map

The one that doesn't show anything properly, doesn't show elevation differences, has no details and looks like shit

Would you like a 4D map?

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

Would you like a 4D map?

Definitely would

Strevi

superhero6785 wrote: »

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

This is maybe the 4th or 5th thread on this over the years. Corruption is not meant to be a reward. It is a punishment. All stick, no carrot is what they have sold it as to those coming into the game worried about non-consensual pvp. If they start changing it for niche players and cut the nuts off the punishment aspect, then it will go poorly as it has in other places.

There obviously has to be SOME carrot for corruption, other wise they'd just remove the ability to attack Greens altogether. The "carrot" being - "Hey, you want this farming spot all to yourself? Is the extra experience you'll get by killing them worth being corrupted to you? Then go for it!"

The "no carrot" argument is that there won't be a deliberate incentive to being corrupted, but that doesn't mean the players can't make their own incentives based on their own risk/reward tolerance.

With that said - I'm totally on board with the corrupted players of any given server coming to an agreement to use one of the nodes as a "safe haven" for corrupted players. In game rules would permit anyone to attack and kill each other. They would only be governed by their own trust in one another. That would probably require Town Guards be entirely decided by the mayor and paid for by taxes. A "corrupted node" would have to forgo any guards as they'd immediately start attacking everyone. Not having any guards is also one of the risks the node would have to incur. If there are any open world events where a node is raided, the players would be wholly responsible for defending it. Bounty Hunters would also know exactly where to hang out and collect bounties. These all sound like perfectly reasonable trade-offs if there's enough corrupted players on a server to maintain a corrupted node.

"They would only be governed by their own trust in one another" - The game is not made for such a concept.

The carrot is the loot if the attacker sees and knows for sure that the other player has valuable resources.
Also the entire philosophy, the conflicts between the nodes, would be very rigid with peaceful players. Therefore the corruption gently introduces players to combat, if they are open to accept it. The others are pushed away to protect the game. Of course the game could be changed but then it would face a big competition with the similar mmos.

Child Item