Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » id say repetitive ganking isnt griefing xd I mean, if you gank someone 5 times over the course of 10 minutes. You're basically camping them
Depraved wrote: » id say repetitive ganking isnt griefing xd
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » id say repetitive ganking isnt griefing xd I mean, if you gank someone 5 times over the course of 10 minutes. You're basically camping them not if they keep coming back to my spot...if I chase them around the map killing them, then sure
Dolyem wrote: » 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
NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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).
Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » Definitely contextless!
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Definitely contextless! Have you finished working on your idea of how to implement contextual understanding for this system?
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » hleV wrote: » 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
hleV wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » 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.
hleV wrote: » Depraved wrote: » hleV wrote: » 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. Depraved wrote: » 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.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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.
Dolyem wrote: » hleV wrote: » Depraved wrote: » hleV wrote: » 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. Depraved wrote: » 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
Dolyem wrote: » 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
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
