Solvryn wrote: » 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. Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response. Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers? The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended.
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.
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.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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. Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response. Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers? The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended. I think players are more flexible to adapt to a corruption system than the system to be adjusted for specific cases. One can grief by playing music in voice chat or causing some game sounds repeatedly or using rp emotes. Players can move away. What other kind of griefing you can see where they are green? Harvesting resources in places you do not want them to harvest? I think that is intended by Steven. Therefore he doesn't offer the tools to stop them unless you start a war.
Solvryn wrote: » The system needs to deter higher levels from bullying lower levels only. If a player chooses to die when they’re perfectly capable of defending themselves that’s they’re own damn fault.
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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. Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response. Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers? The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended. I think players are more flexible to adapt to a corruption system than the system to be adjusted for specific cases. One can grief by playing music in voice chat or causing some game sounds repeatedly or using rp emotes. Players can move away. What other kind of griefing you can see where they are green? Harvesting resources in places you do not want them to harvest? I think that is intended by Steven. Therefore he doesn't offer the tools to stop them unless you start a war. People trying to destroy others guilds, sabotaging, being a political candyass and being underhanded. There’s a litany of ways to grief someone. Should we punish an entire guild for the whims of a single player? I don’t think so. I have chronic tinnitus if someone does annoying shit like blast music over in game comms you’re damn right Im going to kill them.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » The system needs to deter higher levels from bullying lower levels only. If a player chooses to die when they’re perfectly capable of defending themselves that’s they’re own damn fault. How can a high level bully a low level? Killing the mobs he kills? I think negative behavior happens more often when a game is very popular and a huge number of players join. Most likely in free to play games. Where players have to pay monthly subscription the community will be smaller. And there will be GMs you can contact for specific cases.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » 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. Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response. Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers? The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended. I think players are more flexible to adapt to a corruption system than the system to be adjusted for specific cases. One can grief by playing music in voice chat or causing some game sounds repeatedly or using rp emotes. Players can move away. What other kind of griefing you can see where they are green? Harvesting resources in places you do not want them to harvest? I think that is intended by Steven. Therefore he doesn't offer the tools to stop them unless you start a war. People trying to destroy others guilds, sabotaging, being a political candyass and being underhanded. There’s a litany of ways to grief someone. Should we punish an entire guild for the whims of a single player? I don’t think so. I have chronic tinnitus if someone does annoying shit like blast music over in game comms you’re damn right Im going to kill them. I remember sending a PM to the the guild leader of a player who did something I didn't liked. He apologized and said he will look into it. Reputation of a guild can be important when you try to recruit new members or even retain the existing ones.
Solvryn wrote: » So you don’t know what an honor PK is? I guess it makes sense since the newer games are relatively tame. Someone can have a PK count of 1000. If he killed the shitbags and all varieties of griefers, then yeah his honor is still intact. No reason to punish him for doing the server a favor. The system needs to deter higher levels from bullying lower levels only. If a player chooses to die when they’re perfectly capable of defending themselves that’s they’re own damn fault.
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » The system needs to deter higher levels from bullying lower levels only. If a player chooses to die when they’re perfectly capable of defending themselves that’s they’re own damn fault. How can a high level bully a low level? Killing the mobs he kills? I think negative behavior happens more often when a game is very popular and a huge number of players join. Most likely in free to play games. Where players have to pay monthly subscription the community will be smaller. And there will be GMs you can contact for specific cases. By killing them very systematically? Hence where the system makes sense. That didn’t stop anyone in WoW from killing lowbies, just part of PvP.
Solvryn wrote: » That didn’t stop anyone in WoW from killing lowbies, just part of PvP.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » So you don’t know what an honor PK is? I guess it makes sense since the newer games are relatively tame. Someone can have a PK count of 1000. If he killed the shitbags and all varieties of griefers, then yeah his honor is still intact. No reason to punish him for doing the server a favor. The system needs to deter higher levels from bullying lower levels only. If a player chooses to die when they’re perfectly capable of defending themselves that’s they’re own damn fault. I mean, if you're a well-known honor killer people just won't kill you when you're red. But with honor kill come enemies, so you'll be dying either way. There's already ways of punishing shitbags and griefers. There's node wars, guild wars, enemy of the state mechanic, general annoyance and intrusion in their gameplay. None of those include PKing. I get that you're oldschool and want to just kill people w/o any punishment for doing so, but this is not that kind of game.
Solvryn wrote: » And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing.
Sylvanar wrote: » Suffer in silence.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » And that’s where the current proposed system lacks context. PKing isn’t bad, griefing is. Not all pking is griefing. Let's say the game can detect that a high level is killing low level mobs while there are other low level players nearby. Those low level players could tag the NPC and do a little bit of damage and each time this high level kills them, he could get a bar filled which could eventually make him corrupt. Would this be ok?
Dolyem wrote: » My argument is that increasing corruption for non-griefing pvp not only goes against what corruption is designed for, but it just feels bad.
Dolyem wrote: » Nice try with the passive aggressive bit at the end there though. Either way, I think I am covered when it comes to enjoying the game.
Solvryn wrote: » To some this is true, for others it is not. Meaningful conflict for me entails much more than "sieges" and "caravans". Every individual is going to decide what they find meaningful.
Solvryn wrote: » MMO History Lesson: Also PKing is PvPing, back in the old days it was everyone was red, everyone could get looted. We called it PKing, had nothing to do with some pseudo-moralistic stance people have today, they changed the loot rules so the carebears could partake in PvPing without any real consequence to their actions. So they had their fun at the expense of someone elses, which is ironic because that was their argument.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » That didn’t stop anyone in WoW from killing lowbies, just part of PvP. Faction-based pvp is the dumbest system possible
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
