Azherae wrote: » I generally agree with Dygz and see no reason to add a fourth status. This game would function mostly without any Open World PvP at all, and while I am glad for the option, adding the fourth status just increases it for no meaningful reason relative to the goals that are related to dynamism. I expect that if I, or my group's 'Enforcer', get corruption, that the green players around our Node who see this will not have a particularly high chance to attack, due to the assumption that it would be done in order to achieve something positive for the Node Community. Whereas Corrupted Invaders are instantly KoS for any citizens without danger, and their best option is to leave. I support this because it allows us to prevent the 'Node' being 'griefed' as well.
Dolyem wrote: » So if you kill 1 or 2 players to hold down a resource area, you should have a reasonable chance to work it off while fighting off whoever happens to come after you without increasing your punishment you are already dealing with. Where if you have been griefing, you'll have a much more substantial amount of corruption, in which case you'll not only be weaker, but you will be getting attacked far longer due to the increased amount you have to work off, significantly increasing your chances of being killed.
Dolyem wrote: » And please tell me how it would be too easy to deal with corruption if you dont get corrupted for defending yourself, in comparison to how impossible it would be to ever deal with corruption if you do gain more every time you do defend yourself?
NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » So if you kill 1 or 2 players to hold down a resource area, you should have a reasonable chance to work it off while fighting off whoever happens to come after you without increasing your punishment you are already dealing with. Where if you have been griefing, you'll have a much more substantial amount of corruption, in which case you'll not only be weaker, but you will be getting attacked far longer due to the increased amount you have to work off, significantly increasing your chances of being killed. We agree on this. Except I just want the amount of corruption you gain be balanced around the location where you PKed. This is the "balancing" thing I was alluding to. Say you've killed someone deep in a dungeon (one of the most meaningful reasons to PK). The closest respawn point to your location is, say, 1 minute away of direct sprinting. If it was your first PK - I think that you should be able to clear your corruption within that 1 minute. So that if the only one who came to fight you is the victim - they're already late. If you have a few PKs under your belt - it's several minutes to remove corruption, so you'd want to quickly change your location (w/o anyone seeing you) and do your best to kill mobs as fast as possible. If you have 7-10+ PKs - you're royally fucked and shouldn't have PKed in the first place. I would personally prefer if respawn points were a bit further from the dungeon, so that it's never really 1 minute to come back (unless the PK was right at the entrance). But this is just yet another point of design balancing. But this sort of approach accomplishes the same thing you want, but w/o having the complete safety of "no matter who fights me, I'll still remove my corruption". But as you said, we just disagree on the harshness of the corruption punishments themselves. You want them to be super soft, while I want them to be super hard. No one should want to be a corrupted player and if you ever "must" PK - you should be scared for your damn life, instead of chilling around. Dolyem wrote: » And please tell me how it would be too easy to deal with corruption if you dont get corrupted for defending yourself, in comparison to how impossible it would be to ever deal with corruption if you do gain more every time you do defend yourself? Again, you're hung up on the "defending yourself" part. Criminals should not be "defending" themselves. PKers are not fighters - they're murderers. If someone kills a person and then goes on killing more people who are trying to stop that someone - is that someone completely in their right to only get punished for their first kill? I know that the "realism" of the system might not be seen as fun gameplay in this instance, but I agree with this design mainly because I've seen PKers in L2 outlive the danger of dying Red because they could just win against their attackers. This was fairly rare and would usually just end with the PKer asking friends to wipe him several times in a controlled manner, but the PKer never got properly punished by the victims themselves or by any outsider at all. Your suggested system would make this a very frequent occurrence, which would also be even worse than L2's design. In other words, Steven wants even fewer PKers than L2 had, which is why the system "works as intended" in this regard. You just disagree with his decision.
Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » So if you kill 1 or 2 players to hold down a resource area, you should have a reasonable chance to work it off while fighting off whoever happens to come after you without increasing your punishment you are already dealing with. Where if you have been griefing, you'll have a much more substantial amount of corruption, in which case you'll not only be weaker, but you will be getting attacked far longer due to the increased amount you have to work off, significantly increasing your chances of being killed. We agree on this. Except I just want the amount of corruption you gain be balanced around the location where you PKed. This is the "balancing" thing I was alluding to. Say you've killed someone deep in a dungeon (one of the most meaningful reasons to PK). The closest respawn point to your location is, say, 1 minute away of direct sprinting. If it was your first PK - I think that you should be able to clear your corruption within that 1 minute. So that if the only one who came to fight you is the victim - they're already late. If you have a few PKs under your belt - it's several minutes to remove corruption, so you'd want to quickly change your location (w/o anyone seeing you) and do your best to kill mobs as fast as possible. If you have 7-10+ PKs - you're royally fucked and shouldn't have PKed in the first place. I would personally prefer if respawn points were a bit further from the dungeon, so that it's never really 1 minute to come back (unless the PK was right at the entrance). But this is just yet another point of design balancing. But this sort of approach accomplishes the same thing you want, but w/o having the complete safety of "no matter who fights me, I'll still remove my corruption". But as you said, we just disagree on the harshness of the corruption punishments themselves. You want them to be super soft, while I want them to be super hard. No one should want to be a corrupted player and if you ever "must" PK - you should be scared for your damn life, instead of chilling around. Dolyem wrote: » And please tell me how it would be too easy to deal with corruption if you dont get corrupted for defending yourself, in comparison to how impossible it would be to ever deal with corruption if you do gain more every time you do defend yourself? Again, you're hung up on the "defending yourself" part. Criminals should not be "defending" themselves. PKers are not fighters - they're murderers. If someone kills a person and then goes on killing more people who are trying to stop that someone - is that someone completely in their right to only get punished for their first kill? I know that the "realism" of the system might not be seen as fun gameplay in this instance, but I agree with this design mainly because I've seen PKers in L2 outlive the danger of dying Red because they could just win against their attackers. This was fairly rare and would usually just end with the PKer asking friends to wipe him several times in a controlled manner, but the PKer never got properly punished by the victims themselves or by any outsider at all. Your suggested system would make this a very frequent occurrence, which would also be even worse than L2's design. In other words, Steven wants even fewer PKers than L2 had, which is why the system "works as intended" in this regard. You just disagree with his decision. We have both pushed for this concept in other posts. Honestly if we went the route of actually having variables for gaining corruption as opposed to the super basic 1 corruption kill = "welcome to hell", I wouldn't see there being anywhere near as much of a need for what I am suggesting. If 1 or 2 corruption kills amounted to 1-10 minutes of work to get rid of it, I have no worries. But if a single corruption kill amounts more towards 30+ minutes of working it off... this is the sort of issue I am more concerned about. I should have provided a value to what I am theorizing corrupted kills to be. But with different variables you'd be able to do things like have defensive kills grant corruption, just a smaller amount, directly adding the choice of risking more corruption or trying to run, as opposed to any kill you get exponentially screwing you. I would even go as far as saying corruption itself should have levels, with corresponding punishments, as opposed to one static set of punishments with increasing duration and power debuffs the more you get. I am indeed focused on the defensive part, because it is just PvP, not griefing. Even in the real world, criminals have a right to defend their own lives believe it or not. You could make the argument that a bounty hunter should grant corruption when killed maybe, but that comes down to more of a "law" thing instead of a magical force like corruption seems to be. If somebody murders someone and runs away, and someone else hunts that murderer down to kill them, they are also going to be charged with murder. But realism aside, I believe if its voluntary PvP, it shouldn't give more corruption. And corruption, by design, isnt made as a guarantee to punish the corrupted, there is a reward factor in it for a reason. You just arent supposed to have a very good chance of being rewarded once you have griefed enough. And if a player is strong enough to win in a fight against other players even with their corruption, arent they earning their reward? I would hope that if I beat someone in a fight, I don't get punished for being the better player. If I am griefing someone through camping them or killing a low level player, I fully expect to get punished because at that point it isn't a fight. And yea, "killed by friends" is going to be a serious issue when it comes to corruption and avoiding the penalties. Only way around that one is GM's catching people in the act imo. But that has nothing to do with a corrupted player being able to defend themselves without shooting themselves in the foot every time they have to do it. All of that being said, yes to gradually increasing the severity of corruption punishments the more you get and variables for obtaining different amounts of corruption. Starting with low punishments to accommodate for PKing that isn't actually griefing, but gradually spilling over into a bad state to be in due to excessive killing. And all of that is assuming you are correct with low times of corruption.
Okeydoke wrote: » There's too many unknown variables in the corruption system to really fully debate this. At a base level Dolyem, yeah I agree reds should be able to defend themselves without going further red (there are some potential abuses that would have to be plugged with this I think though). More than any of that, I think reds should be able to use CC against greens attacking them. But it depends on the other variables of the system and how they're tuned. I'd be fine with those "levers" above being the way they are now, if it's balanced out by the way other levers of the system are tuned. For me it's not really about red vs green. And I definitely don't care about the eternal war between extreme carebears and griefers. As far as I'm concerned, both of those groups have a mindset and certain emotional instability that makes anything they say on the subject worthless. For me, it's just about....is there a healthy amount of open world pvp/pvx and contesting of resources? Or did we get New World'd. That's pretty much it. We know from a recent interview that Steven expects the average player to get murdered about 3% of the time. I think he said 3%, something close to that. That's pretty rare. Might be killed more than that in a pve game from getting mob trained lol, or just mobs period. But that's what he said. So I'm assuming he intends to create the whole open world/contesting of resources dynamic within the combatant/purple realm. By designing the flagging system to compel people to flag and defend themselves in situations where it makes sense to. Like actually compel people. System just needs to be tested.
Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » It's OK for you to think that the design for Corruption makes PvP not fun. Ashes is not made for everyone. Nice try with the passive aggressive bit at the end there though.
Dygz wrote: » It's OK for you to think that the design for Corruption makes PvP not fun. Ashes is not made for everyone.
NiKr wrote: » In other words, Steven wants even fewer PKers than L2 had, which is why the system "works as intended" in this regard. You just disagree with his decision.
unknownsystemerror wrote: » NiKr wrote: » In other words, Steven wants even fewer PKers than L2 had, which is why the system "works as intended" in this regard. You just disagree with his decision. Which he also put out in this post to a video where the guy had "bad takes."
Dygz wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » True. Sieges will not happen often, except the monthly Castle sieges. So caravan running might be the PvPer main activity in this game. I hope PvE will be good. There should be at least 20 Sieges associated with Castles each month: 5 Castle-node Sieges each week + 5 Castle Sieges each month. Also - The Open Seas. Plus Guild Wars and Node Wars.
Raven016 wrote: » True. Sieges will not happen often, except the monthly Castle sieges. So caravan running might be the PvPer main activity in this game. I hope PvE will be good.
Dolyem wrote: » I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power So what am I suggesting? Make a 4th player combat flagging status. Where a non-combatant who engages a corrupted doesn't give more corruption upon being killed, but also isn't flagged fully as a combatant, so someone else who isn't corrupted could still become corrupted from attacking them. Could call it vigilante status or something. Why? Because the only ones who should grant corruption are the ones who aren't fighting back against you. The other more simple solution is to make anyone attacking someone a combatant regardless of if the player has corruption or not, but that opens up players to being taken out by a corrupted players friends once they are flagged as combatant, hence my suggestion.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » "Working as intended" or making PvP not fun? Feels much more like the 2nd one. Nice try carebear Meaningful PvP Conflict = Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars. Not really supposed to be getting tons of fun from the PvP that has a Risk of Corruption. Which is why Corruption is harsher than L2 Karma. If you want tons of meaningless PvP combat fun - you have The Open Seas for (Corruption-free) FFA PvP.
Dolyem wrote: » "Working as intended" or making PvP not fun? Feels much more like the 2nd one. Nice try carebear
Dolyem wrote: » I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance.
Dolyem wrote: » unknownsystemerror wrote: » NiKr wrote: » In other words, Steven wants even fewer PKers than L2 had, which is why the system "works as intended" in this regard. You just disagree with his decision. Which he also put out in this post to a video where the guy had "bad takes." Not once did he say he wants less PKs, not all PKing is griefing. The last bit is all you need. "As a system it is core to introducing risk vs reward in Ashes, while disincentivizing griefing" My point, defending yourself isn't griefing, therefore shouldn't cause more corruption following this core design philosophy.
Solvryn wrote: » Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations. Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up. Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed. So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine.
Raven016 wrote: » Then, as the player becomes corrupt, should get less agro from corrupt NPCs.
Solvryn wrote: » Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers?
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers? Who determines what's an "honor PK" and what's not? If that PKer have a 0 PK count - he should be able to clear his corruption quickly. And if he had a high count - well then he's not quite honorable, is he. Overcomplicating the system will lead to confusion and complaints (sandal knows we've had a ton already). Having a ton of small nuances and particular rules, that would properly differentiate honorable and dishonorable kills - would be that exact overcomplication.
