Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you
But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context).
Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive.
i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person...
probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking.
I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences.
Gatherers will not typically have enough resources to worth being ganked.
But if there are cases where you know that a player has epic resources, he may or may not be alone.
The system as it is now help gatherer teams survive when they are afraid they cannot defeat the solo ganker.
I see no reason to help a solo ganker to be as efficient as a group of gankers.
If the gatherers can team up, gankers should do that too.
Typical case for ganking could be on roads between nodes where players transport carefully selected materials, using mules instead of caravans.
Gankers will be the force which push players to use caravans when they transport something expensive.
While they look for caravans they'll see players with mules and will attack them. If they do not flag as combatants, the attackers might stop, thinking they have nothing of value. Once in a while they might go all the way and kill, to check what the mule really contains.
If green players notice that gankers stop ganking, they may think it is safe and start increasing the value of materials they transport outside of the caravan system. When the value gets high enough, gankers will notice and start ganking more often again, pushing them back into the caravan system.
The difference between caravans and mules from my understanding is that caravans are set on road systems the player must choose from, which will almost guarantee them being intercepted but also have many more defense options. Mules are less protected but have free range of movement. Not to mention carrying capacity. So if you decide to take a mule cross country, it's up to you to decide how to defend it. If a solo player is capable of taking it down, I don't see an issue there, the mule should have planned more accordingly. Same goes for groups. And part of the gamble of players attacking mules or gatherers is the chance they don't have great loot. Either way, my corruption suggestions still apply to these instances as well.
0
Options
unknownsystemerrorMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Roads will upgrade as nodes advance. Different roads will dictate the speed and type of caravan required (off road vs on road).[13]
So while quest generated won't be controlled by players and may be restricted to roads, the personals are not.
Quest driven caravans are used for trade routes between nodes. These caravans are system driven.[10]
Personal (Self-directed/player driven) caravans are initiated by the player, who essentially "becomes the caravan". These are land-based and water-based (naval caravans) that the player drives and directs.[14][10]
If you prep your caravan it's going to be in a launch-ready state and you can launch a caravan whenever you want, keep it in the launch ready state. If you click to launch the caravan, your perspective will leave to a world map perspective that sits above the node and you will have a 360 line that lives outside of the node area at a good distance, roughly about 100 to 150 meters from the node, and you will spawn the caravan there; and it will take about two to five minutes depending on some of the upgrades that the caravanserai has for that caravan to spawn outside the node at that location. During that time you can teleport to that launch location, which is just outside the node- from the node itself. That way people can't follow you, see your node- see your caravan that's about to leave or whatever; but you can let your players know "hey if you're part of my group you can also port with me and we'll spawn at the location that the caravan's getting constructed at. Once the caravan little construction site is finished, your caravan is ready to to mount and you're ready to move along the way with it.[5] – Steven Sharif
BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment.
the difference is regular greens cant see you anywhere on the map, bh can
They don't need to see you on the map, because you're on their screen. They don't serve as general dedicated BHs, they temporarily do a BH's job of trying to dispose of a corrupted player, so the combat rules and penalties should be identical.
I like the stat dampening tbh. it prevents lots of ways to abuse the system, like making an alt just to pk and be perma red without getting your main character's hands dirty.
Have you perhaps missed the part where my whole post was specifically about AGGRESSIVE greens being... AGGRESSIVE? Greens don't need extra advantages (such as initiating a fight against a red and easily killing them because they have dampened stats), otherwise it won't make sense to be a dedicated BH when fighting a red as a green is so much better.
BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment.
the difference is regular greens cant see you anywhere on the map, bh can
They don't need to see you on the map, because you're on their screen. They don't serve as general dedicated BHs, they temporarily do a BH's job of trying to dispose of a corrupted player, so the combat rules and penalties should be identical.
I like the stat dampening tbh. it prevents lots of ways to abuse the system, like making an alt just to pk and be perma red without getting your main character's hands dirty.
Have you perhaps missed the part where my whole post was specifically about AGGRESSIVE greens being... AGGRESSIVE? Greens don't need extra advantages (such as initiating a fight against a red and easily killing them because they have dampened stats), otherwise it won't make sense to be a dedicated BH when fighting a red as a green is so much better.
Yes I saw the aggressor part. My whole argument has been to not punish with MORE corruption when defending oneself. I still believe corruption should have weight to its punishment. I've also said that the first few PKs should be more lenient. So someone not necessarily griefing can still fight back, while someone who passes the griefing threshold gets significantly more worse debuffs. Deterring griefing
Gatherers will not typically have enough resources to worth being ganked.
But if there are cases where you know that a player has epic resources, he may or may not be alone.
The system as it is now help gatherer teams survive when they are afraid they cannot defeat the solo ganker.
I see no reason to help a solo ganker to be as efficient as a group of gankers.
If the gatherers can team up, gankers should do that too.
Typical case for ganking could be on roads between nodes where players transport carefully selected materials, using mules instead of caravans.
Gankers will be the force which push players to use caravans when they transport something expensive.
While they look for caravans they'll see players with mules and will attack them. If they do not flag as combatants, the attackers might stop, thinking they have nothing of value. Once in a while they might go all the way and kill, to check what the mule really contains.
If green players notice that gankers stop ganking, they may think it is safe and start increasing the value of materials they transport outside of the caravan system. When the value gets high enough, gankers will notice and start ganking more often again, pushing them back into the caravan system.
The difference between caravans and mules from my understanding is that caravans are set on road systems the player must choose from, which will almost guarantee them being intercepted but also have many more defense options. Mules are less protected but have free range of movement. Not to mention carrying capacity. So if you decide to take a mule cross country, it's up to you to decide how to defend it. If a solo player is capable of taking it down, I don't see an issue there, the mule should have planned more accordingly. Same goes for groups. And part of the gamble of players attacking mules or gatherers is the chance they don't have great loot. Either way, my corruption suggestions still apply to these instances as well.
Regarding the last sentence "Either way, my corruption suggestions still apply to these instances as well"
Your issue is that you want as a soloer to be able to attack a group of 6 greens and kill them all but not grind the experience for the 6 kills.
A group of 6 gankers could share the corruption and grind it together 6 times faster than you can.
Why do you want an advantage over the players who team up?
BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment.
the difference is regular greens cant see you anywhere on the map, bh can
They don't need to see you on the map, because you're on their screen. They don't serve as general dedicated BHs, they temporarily do a BH's job of trying to dispose of a corrupted player, so the combat rules and penalties should be identical.
I like the stat dampening tbh. it prevents lots of ways to abuse the system, like making an alt just to pk and be perma red without getting your main character's hands dirty.
Have you perhaps missed the part where my whole post was specifically about AGGRESSIVE greens being... AGGRESSIVE? Greens don't need extra advantages (such as initiating a fight against a red and easily killing them because they have dampened stats), otherwise it won't make sense to be a dedicated BH when fighting a red as a green is so much better.
Yes I saw the aggressor part. My whole argument has been to not punish with MORE corruption when defending oneself. I still believe corruption should have weight to its punishment. I've also said that the first few PKs should be more lenient. So someone not necessarily griefing can still fight back, while someone who passes the griefing threshold gets significantly more worse debuffs. Deterring griefing
You do not defend yourself. You still fight for the loot of the first green you killed and maybe you had no time to loot it yet because the tetris like inventory system.
Even if you had time to loot it, you cannot claim at that very moment that is yours and not theirs.
Yes I saw the aggressor part. My whole argument has been to not punish with MORE corruption when defending oneself. I still believe corruption should have weight to its punishment. I've also said that the first few PKs should be more lenient. So someone not necessarily griefing can still fight back, while someone who passes the griefing threshold gets significantly more worse debuffs. Deterring griefing
Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you
But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context).
Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive.
i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person...
probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking.
I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences.
what if a completely different person that has nothing to do with you kills that player because that player was pve griefing him? now that other dude is gonna get a lot of corruption on his first kill xD poor guy hahaha
BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment.
the difference is regular greens cant see you anywhere on the map, bh can
They don't need to see you on the map, because you're on their screen. They don't serve as general dedicated BHs, they temporarily do a BH's job of trying to dispose of a corrupted player, so the combat rules and penalties should be identical.
I like the stat dampening tbh. it prevents lots of ways to abuse the system, like making an alt just to pk and be perma red without getting your main character's hands dirty.
Have you perhaps missed the part where my whole post was specifically about AGGRESSIVE greens being... AGGRESSIVE? Greens don't need extra advantages (such as initiating a fight against a red and easily killing them because they have dampened stats), otherwise it won't make sense to be a dedicated BH when fighting a red as a green is so much better.
what i mean is, if you get corruption you arent going to stay in the middle of a popular farming spot where people are passing by all the time or where the person you killed can come back and find you right away. you will most likely move to a nearby hidden spot to lose corruption. the greens cant see you, the bh can.
also, believe it or not, not everybody will attack you when you are red. there are many reasons to not attack someone when they are red, and one of them includes dying and losing your rare loot.
but hey, dont pk in the middle of a farming spot with 20 other random players because they will all gangbang you ;3
You're either failing to see the point or choosing not to see it. The BH advantage you're talking about is irrelevant in the scenario of a green coming across a random red. In this case green has way better advantage than a BH: he gets to jump a stat-dampened red and the red might hesitate to fight back so as not to further increase their corruption. That's why the rules for aggressive green vs red should temporarily work as BH vs red. Otherwise a BH who knows where the reds are can tell their non-BH friend to hunt them, because it's better to go vs red as a green than as a BH.
You're either failing to see the point or choosing not to see it. The BH advantage you're talking about is irrelevant in the scenario of a green coming across a random red. In this case green has way better advantage than a BH: he gets to jump a stat-dampened red and the red might hesitate to fight back so as not to further increase their corruption. That's why the rules for aggressive green vs red should temporarily work as BH vs red. Otherwise a BH who knows where the reds are can tell their non-BH friend to hunt them, because it's better to go vs red as a green than as a BH.
stat dampening wont happen with your first kill, afaik, just as you accumulate corruption.
ayou also fail to see my point. you can hide from greens, you cant hide from bh, thats why you dont get the stat dampening vs bh and you can cc them.
if you played l2, you would knew how easy it is to hide from whites (greens in aoc) and lose karma (corruption) completely avoiding everything you said. but you cant hide form bh here because they can see you on the map.
if they call their non bh friends to kill you, why cant you call your friends to protect you?
see thats the problem, people here are only talking from the perspective of "im a solo player and i pk then im dealt a very bad hand for doing it and that needs to change". the game is designed around party play, not solo play.
You're only talking about how to work around the issue, not the issue itself. Most of your workarounds are based on assumptions, too (like comparing hiding from others to L2). You don't know how it'll be in AoC. The issue remains. Is it easy to avoid/work around? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't remove the issue itself. AGGRESSIVE greens should not have any advantage over BHs whatsoever when it comes to fighting reds, and if the system is kept as is, greens will.
To summarize my point, stat-dampening should work as a means to stop you from going on killing sprees against innocent greens, not screw you in the case that a green decides to attack you (it's a job for BHs after all).
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2023
Better in what ways?
Could you list the ways it's "better", please?
Combat rules should not be identical for Greens and Bounty Hunters.
Reds should have more incentive to fight Bounty Hunters than to fight Greens.
If an "aggressive" Green is killed by a Red player they still suffer normal death penalties.
Greens do not flag to Purple when they fight Reds. So... Greens have less incentive to fight Reds than a Purple or BH unless they are very sure they can win. And there is no way for Greens to know if Reds have stats that are dampened enough to guarantee a win.
Also, Reds with severe stat dampening should be dropping gear with severe durability loss from 4x penalties.
Also, Bounty Hunters are going to be pursuing Bounty Hunter progression, so it makes no sense for a BH who knows where the Reds are to tell their non-BH friend(s) to hunt Reds.
Already been listed. Anything extra would be a waste of energy, so I'll refrain. I have zero confidence in your ability to grasp PvP topics.
Then it should be easy for you to re-post the list. That don't take a lot of "energy".
Also, I don't need to understand PvP topics - I just need to understand the Ashes flagging system.
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You're only talking about how to work around the issue, not the issue itself. Most of your workarounds are based on assumptions, too (like comparing hiding from others to L2). You don't know how it'll be in AoC. The issue remains. Is it easy to avoid/work around? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't remove the issue itself. AGGRESSIVE greens should not have any advantage over BHs whatsoever when it comes to fighting reds, and if the system is kept as is, greens will.
To summarize my point, stat-dampening should work as a means to stop you from going on killing sprees against innocent greens, not screw you in the case that a green decides to attack you (it's a job for BHs after all).
so if you are red and a green attacks you first you shouldn't get your stats dampened? or how can you differentiate the player's intention? then you cant attack higher level reds who are camping low level areas because their stats wont be dampened if you are aggressive first. if you just automatically penalize the higher level player for attacking lowbies, then people will just be running low level alts to kill everyone.
again, corruption isnt a desirable state to be in. stat dampening isnt an issue imo and it prevents lots of abuses.
you are talking from the perspective of a solo player that doesnt want other people to have an advantage over you when you are red. but the game isnt designed around solo play. also, the system will protect you as well. you will benefit from the system more that you will be detrimented by it.try to see the system from the perspective of other players as well.
edit: also stat dampenign doesnt happen on first kill on someone your level...you need to get lots of corruption for that, so a few kills. so the next person coming to attack you, will fight you at your full capacity, unless you are dumb enough to just go pk n a populated area and start killing everybody one right after the other, in which case, stat dampening isnt an issue and its actually good
Gatherers will not typically have enough resources to worth being ganked.
But if there are cases where you know that a player has epic resources, he may or may not be alone.
The system as it is now help gatherer teams survive when they are afraid they cannot defeat the solo ganker.
I see no reason to help a solo ganker to be as efficient as a group of gankers.
If the gatherers can team up, gankers should do that too.
Typical case for ganking could be on roads between nodes where players transport carefully selected materials, using mules instead of caravans.
Gankers will be the force which push players to use caravans when they transport something expensive.
While they look for caravans they'll see players with mules and will attack them. If they do not flag as combatants, the attackers might stop, thinking they have nothing of value. Once in a while they might go all the way and kill, to check what the mule really contains.
If green players notice that gankers stop ganking, they may think it is safe and start increasing the value of materials they transport outside of the caravan system. When the value gets high enough, gankers will notice and start ganking more often again, pushing them back into the caravan system.
The difference between caravans and mules from my understanding is that caravans are set on road systems the player must choose from, which will almost guarantee them being intercepted but also have many more defense options. Mules are less protected but have free range of movement. Not to mention carrying capacity. So if you decide to take a mule cross country, it's up to you to decide how to defend it. If a solo player is capable of taking it down, I don't see an issue there, the mule should have planned more accordingly. Same goes for groups. And part of the gamble of players attacking mules or gatherers is the chance they don't have great loot. Either way, my corruption suggestions still apply to these instances as well.
Regarding the last sentence "Either way, my corruption suggestions still apply to these instances as well"
Your issue is that you want as a soloer to be able to attack a group of 6 greens and kill them all but not grind the experience for the 6 kills.
A group of 6 gankers could share the corruption and grind it together 6 times faster than you can.
Why do you want an advantage over the players who team up?
Where have I ever said that I want to be able to kill a group of 6 players?
BHs don't negate corruption penalties, unless you're talking about reds not having dampened stats and not gaining additional corruption for killing BHs, which should be identical against AGGRESSIVE greens (not the greens that don't fight back), because, said AGGRESSIVE greens are literally doing BH's job at that moment.
the difference is regular greens cant see you anywhere on the map, bh can
They don't need to see you on the map, because you're on their screen. They don't serve as general dedicated BHs, they temporarily do a BH's job of trying to dispose of a corrupted player, so the combat rules and penalties should be identical.
I like the stat dampening tbh. it prevents lots of ways to abuse the system, like making an alt just to pk and be perma red without getting your main character's hands dirty.
Have you perhaps missed the part where my whole post was specifically about AGGRESSIVE greens being... AGGRESSIVE? Greens don't need extra advantages (such as initiating a fight against a red and easily killing them because they have dampened stats), otherwise it won't make sense to be a dedicated BH when fighting a red as a green is so much better.
Yes I saw the aggressor part. My whole argument has been to not punish with MORE corruption when defending oneself. I still believe corruption should have weight to its punishment. I've also said that the first few PKs should be more lenient. So someone not necessarily griefing can still fight back, while someone who passes the griefing threshold gets significantly more worse debuffs. Deterring griefing
You do not defend yourself. You still fight for the loot of the first green you killed and maybe you had no time to loot it yet because the tetris like inventory system.
Even if you had time to loot it, you cannot claim at that very moment that is yours and not theirs.
If someone engages you, you are defending yourself.
Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you
But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context).
Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive.
i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person...
probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking.
I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences.
what if a completely different person that has nothing to do with you kills that player because that player was pve griefing him? now that other dude is gonna get a lot of corruption on his first kill xD poor guy hahaha
I didn't say it was a perfect suggestion haha. Just offering middle ground. But you're right as far as if they are PvE griefing. I feel like there should be a supplemental corruption system for PvE griefing as well.
Yes I saw the aggressor part. My whole argument has been to not punish with MORE corruption when defending oneself. I still believe corruption should have weight to its punishment. I've also said that the first few PKs should be more lenient. So someone not necessarily griefing can still fight back, while someone who passes the griefing threshold gets significantly more worse debuffs. Deterring griefing
Already been listed. Anything extra would be a waste of energy, so I'll refrain. I have zero confidence in your ability to grasp PvP topics.
Then it should be easy for you to re-post the list. That don't take a lot of "energy".
Also, I don't need to understand PvP topics - I just need to understand the Ashes flagging system.
I'd argue that you need a proper understanding of PvP to giving proper feedback on a system that mainly has to do with OWPvP
Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you
But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context).
Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive.
i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person...
probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking.
I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences.
what if a completely different person that has nothing to do with you kills that player because that player was pve griefing him? now that other dude is gonna get a lot of corruption on his first kill xD poor guy hahaha
I didn't say it was a perfect suggestion haha. Just offering middle ground. But you're right as far as if they are PvE griefing. I feel like there should be a supplemental corruption system for PvE griefing as well.
I wish we had pve corruption. here is a crazy idea, if you are farming in an area, and another person starts attacking the mobs near you, they should get corruption
I want to farm without anyone bothering me, you know. I want to be able to farm without those annoying pvers forcing me to kill mobs faster or forcing me to go to another area. I wanna be next level carebear.
Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you
But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context).
Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive.
i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person...
probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking.
I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences.
what if a completely different person that has nothing to do with you kills that player because that player was pve griefing him? now that other dude is gonna get a lot of corruption on his first kill xD poor guy hahaha
I didn't say it was a perfect suggestion haha. Just offering middle ground. But you're right as far as if they are PvE griefing. I feel like there should be a supplemental corruption system for PvE griefing as well.
I wish we had pve corruption. here is a crazy idea, if you are farming in an area, and another person starts attacking the mobs near you, they should get corruption
I want to farm without anyone bothering me, you know. I want to be able to farm without those annoying pvers forcing me to kill mobs faster or forcing me to go to another area. I wanna be next level carebear.
I'd just have it incorporated into environment management like I said earlier. Could even have it set where once a resource gets scarce enough in a node, it marks you with corruption every time you gather it. And once the resource recovers enough, no more corruption upon gathering. Solid PvE grief deterrent. It would even promote players to spread out traveling to other nodes to gather to avoid corruption.
This would also promote bounty hunting more.
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Well yes, at that point I'd guess they are engaging you. But if they are using non-combatant status as a shield, you'd probably want a buffer to smack them a few times before corruption absolutely wrecks you
But how would the automatic system that tracks "griefing" determine that your repetitive kills are not "griefing"? You'd be killing the same person, in the same place within a short timeframe. Sounds like griefing to me (outside of context).
Indeed, which is why I've been saying to have the first few be lenient as a middle ground. I can't think of a way to differentiate, so I say to just allow a limit determined by testing for what is acceptable to kill before ramping corruption into overdrive.
i kill you 3 times, then i stop because ill get too much corruption. but now my friend kills you 3 times then stop, then i come with an alt and kill you 3 more times, then my friend comes with an alt and kills you 3 more times. then the cooldown for repetitive kills is over and i kill you with my main 3 times, then my friend kills you 3 times..and you can do this to every person...
probably the best thing to do is just to allow 1-3 pk counts where if you die red, you wont drop your equipped gear, however, you can still drop other things. then you have to do a loooong quest to lower the pk count back to 0. nto something trivial that takes a few mins or an hour. and make the 1-3 kills account bound, not character bound so you can't abuse alts for pking.
I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences.
what if a completely different person that has nothing to do with you kills that player because that player was pve griefing him? now that other dude is gonna get a lot of corruption on his first kill xD poor guy hahaha
I didn't say it was a perfect suggestion haha. Just offering middle ground. But you're right as far as if they are PvE griefing. I feel like there should be a supplemental corruption system for PvE griefing as well.
I wish we had pve corruption. here is a crazy idea, if you are farming in an area, and another person starts attacking the mobs near you, they should get corruption
I want to farm without anyone bothering me, you know. I want to be able to farm without those annoying pvers forcing me to kill mobs faster or forcing me to go to another area. I wanna be next level carebear.
Love it haha
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Comments
I'm not against account bound corruption. But another possible fix is to maybe have a grace buff after a certain amount of deaths on a player that grants even more corruption upon killing them. This also goes back to my suggestion of destroying half of the resources upon death to prevent friends from killing you a few times to abuse the system without consequences.
The difference between caravans and mules from my understanding is that caravans are set on road systems the player must choose from, which will almost guarantee them being intercepted but also have many more defense options. Mules are less protected but have free range of movement. Not to mention carrying capacity. So if you decide to take a mule cross country, it's up to you to decide how to defend it. If a solo player is capable of taking it down, I don't see an issue there, the mule should have planned more accordingly. Same goes for groups. And part of the gamble of players attacking mules or gatherers is the chance they don't have great loot. Either way, my corruption suggestions still apply to these instances as well.
So while quest generated won't be controlled by players and may be restricted to roads, the personals are not.
Quest driven caravans are used for trade routes between nodes. These caravans are system driven.[10]
Personal (Self-directed/player driven) caravans are initiated by the player, who essentially "becomes the caravan". These are land-based and water-based (naval caravans) that the player drives and directs.[14][10]
If you prep your caravan it's going to be in a launch-ready state and you can launch a caravan whenever you want, keep it in the launch ready state. If you click to launch the caravan, your perspective will leave to a world map perspective that sits above the node and you will have a 360 line that lives outside of the node area at a good distance, roughly about 100 to 150 meters from the node, and you will spawn the caravan there; and it will take about two to five minutes depending on some of the upgrades that the caravanserai has for that caravan to spawn outside the node at that location. During that time you can teleport to that launch location, which is just outside the node- from the node itself. That way people can't follow you, see your node- see your caravan that's about to leave or whatever; but you can let your players know "hey if you're part of my group you can also port with me and we'll spawn at the location that the caravan's getting constructed at. Once the caravan little construction site is finished, your caravan is ready to to mount and you're ready to move along the way with it.[5] – Steven Sharif
Have you perhaps missed the part where my whole post was specifically about AGGRESSIVE greens being... AGGRESSIVE? Greens don't need extra advantages (such as initiating a fight against a red and easily killing them because they have dampened stats), otherwise it won't make sense to be a dedicated BH when fighting a red as a green is so much better.
Yes I saw the aggressor part. My whole argument has been to not punish with MORE corruption when defending oneself. I still believe corruption should have weight to its punishment. I've also said that the first few PKs should be more lenient. So someone not necessarily griefing can still fight back, while someone who passes the griefing threshold gets significantly more worse debuffs. Deterring griefing
Regarding the last sentence "Either way, my corruption suggestions still apply to these instances as well"
Your issue is that you want as a soloer to be able to attack a group of 6 greens and kill them all but not grind the experience for the 6 kills.
A group of 6 gankers could share the corruption and grind it together 6 times faster than you can.
Why do you want an advantage over the players who team up?
You do not defend yourself. You still fight for the loot of the first green you killed and maybe you had no time to loot it yet because the tetris like inventory system.
Even if you had time to loot it, you cannot claim at that very moment that is yours and not theirs.
what if a completely different person that has nothing to do with you kills that player because that player was pve griefing him? now that other dude is gonna get a lot of corruption on his first kill xD poor guy hahaha
what i mean is, if you get corruption you arent going to stay in the middle of a popular farming spot where people are passing by all the time or where the person you killed can come back and find you right away. you will most likely move to a nearby hidden spot to lose corruption. the greens cant see you, the bh can.
also, believe it or not, not everybody will attack you when you are red. there are many reasons to not attack someone when they are red, and one of them includes dying and losing your rare loot.
but hey, dont pk in the middle of a farming spot with 20 other random players because they will all gangbang you ;3
disagreeing.
your stats aren't dampened against bounty hunters because bhs have an advantage that greens dont have. thats my point.
stat dampening wont happen with your first kill, afaik, just as you accumulate corruption.
ayou also fail to see my point. you can hide from greens, you cant hide from bh, thats why you dont get the stat dampening vs bh and you can cc them.
if you played l2, you would knew how easy it is to hide from whites (greens in aoc) and lose karma (corruption) completely avoiding everything you said. but you cant hide form bh here because they can see you on the map.
if they call their non bh friends to kill you, why cant you call your friends to protect you?
see thats the problem, people here are only talking from the perspective of "im a solo player and i pk then im dealt a very bad hand for doing it and that needs to change". the game is designed around party play, not solo play.
To summarize my point, stat-dampening should work as a means to stop you from going on killing sprees against innocent greens, not screw you in the case that a green decides to attack you (it's a job for BHs after all).
Could you list the ways it's "better", please?
Combat rules should not be identical for Greens and Bounty Hunters.
Reds should have more incentive to fight Bounty Hunters than to fight Greens.
If an "aggressive" Green is killed by a Red player they still suffer normal death penalties.
Greens do not flag to Purple when they fight Reds. So... Greens have less incentive to fight Reds than a Purple or BH unless they are very sure they can win. And there is no way for Greens to know if Reds have stats that are dampened enough to guarantee a win.
Also, Reds with severe stat dampening should be dropping gear with severe durability loss from 4x penalties.
Also, Bounty Hunters are going to be pursuing Bounty Hunter progression, so it makes no sense for a BH who knows where the Reds are to tell their non-BH friend(s) to hunt Reds.
Also, I don't need to understand PvP topics - I just need to understand the Ashes flagging system.
Just stop replying to him, it will hinder his wanting to post, as he will always have to have the last word.
so if you are red and a green attacks you first you shouldn't get your stats dampened? or how can you differentiate the player's intention? then you cant attack higher level reds who are camping low level areas because their stats wont be dampened if you are aggressive first. if you just automatically penalize the higher level player for attacking lowbies, then people will just be running low level alts to kill everyone.
again, corruption isnt a desirable state to be in. stat dampening isnt an issue imo and it prevents lots of abuses.
you are talking from the perspective of a solo player that doesnt want other people to have an advantage over you when you are red. but the game isnt designed around solo play. also, the system will protect you as well. you will benefit from the system more that you will be detrimented by it.try to see the system from the perspective of other players as well.
edit: also stat dampenign doesnt happen on first kill on someone your level...you need to get lots of corruption for that, so a few kills. so the next person coming to attack you, will fight you at your full capacity, unless you are dumb enough to just go pk n a populated area and start killing everybody one right after the other, in which case, stat dampening isnt an issue and its actually good
Where have I ever said that I want to be able to kill a group of 6 players?
If someone engages you, you are defending yourself.
I didn't say it was a perfect suggestion haha. Just offering middle ground. But you're right as far as if they are PvE griefing. I feel like there should be a supplemental corruption system for PvE griefing as well.
I may be a little dyslexic haha
I'd argue that you need a proper understanding of PvP to giving proper feedback on a system that mainly has to do with OWPvP
I wish we had pve corruption. here is a crazy idea, if you are farming in an area, and another person starts attacking the mobs near you, they should get corruption
I want to farm without anyone bothering me, you know. I want to be able to farm without those annoying pvers forcing me to kill mobs faster or forcing me to go to another area. I wanna be next level carebear.
I'd just have it incorporated into environment management like I said earlier. Could even have it set where once a resource gets scarce enough in a node, it marks you with corruption every time you gather it. And once the resource recovers enough, no more corruption upon gathering. Solid PvE grief deterrent. It would even promote players to spread out traveling to other nodes to gather to avoid corruption.
This would also promote bounty hunting more.
Love it haha
My point exactly