Depraved wrote: » 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.
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. Next level Carebear would be to not farm anything. Carebear Challenge is reaching max level with 0 kills. But... players don't really own farmable areas, so... PvE Corruption would not be a thing.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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?
Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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?
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.
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: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. Next level Carebear would be to not farm anything. Carebear Challenge is reaching max level with 0 kills. But... players don't really own farmable areas, so... PvE Corruption would not be a thing. well, carebears complain that pvpers force them into a type of gameplay that they dont want, but they are the same people who force other players into a type of gameplay they dont want .. .
Raven016 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. Next level Carebear would be to not farm anything. Carebear Challenge is reaching max level with 0 kills. But... players don't really own farmable areas, so... PvE Corruption would not be a thing. well, carebears complain that pvpers force them into a type of gameplay that they dont want, but they are the same people who force other players into a type of gameplay they dont want .. . That is Steven. He makes the game as it is. PvPers have to PvE to clean corruption, PvEers have to PvP to retain some of their own collected stuff... Nothing makes sense. Without such rules, gankers would take everything and would never PvE unless for materials when the PvEers left the server.
Raven016 wrote: » Nothing makes sense.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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? Is the number "6" which is important? That was just an example. The first sentence of the OP: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 So how will those non-combatants manage to find you when you are corrupt? The only case I can imagine is that there is a group of greens who mind their business and you go and kill one of them and you become corrupt. And while you attempt to loot, they try to prevent you taking it. You feel entitled to be exempt form getting more corruption because you defeated one of them? The game should not help solo gankers.
Depraved wrote: » so if you are red and a green attacks you first you shouldn't get your stats dampened?
Depraved wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » 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
Depraved wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. Next level Carebear would be to not farm anything. Carebear Challenge is reaching max level with 0 kills. But... players don't really own farmable areas, so... PvE Corruption would not be a thing. well, carebears complain that pvpers force them into a type of gameplay that they dont want, but they are the same people who force other players into a type of gameplay they dont want .. . That is Steven. He makes the game as it is. PvPers have to PvE to clean corruption, PvEers have to PvP to retain some of their own collected stuff... Nothing makes sense. Without such rules, gankers would take everything and would never PvE unless for materials when the PvEers left the server. i wasn't complaining about such mechanics, I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of pve heroes.
NiKr wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Nothing makes sense. It makes perfect sense
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. Next level Carebear would be to not farm anything. Carebear Challenge is reaching max level with 0 kills. But... players don't really own farmable areas, so... PvE Corruption would not be a thing. well, carebears complain that pvpers force them into a type of gameplay that they dont want, but they are the same people who force other players into a type of gameplay they dont want .. . That is Steven. He makes the game as it is. PvPers have to PvE to clean corruption, PvEers have to PvP to retain some of their own collected stuff... Nothing makes sense. Without such rules, gankers would take everything and would never PvE unless for materials when the PvEers left the server. You will have to play the game and including some of the parts you don't like. Gamers consent to any game they play from the time they double click the launcher, hit the button that takes you to the character select screen, selecting the character you enter the world with, and selecting play game. Due diligence will allow anyone to research the game before making any purchases; if someone doesn't like the risk of being PvP'd, then they won't like Ashes. If someone doesn't like killing mobs, then they won't like Ashes. Why they would leave the server knowing they're going to lose their shit eventually constitutes failure on their part. Everyone will eventually lose something in Ashes.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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? Is the number "6" which is important? That was just an example. The first sentence of the OP: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 So how will those non-combatants manage to find you when you are corrupt? The only case I can imagine is that there is a group of greens who mind their business and you go and kill one of them and you become corrupt. And while you attempt to loot, they try to prevent you taking it. You feel entitled to be exempt form getting more corruption because you defeated one of them? The game should not help solo gankers. The number doesn't matter really. In most cases you will likely lose a fight that you're outnumbered in so it's an irrelevant argument. And if you want to have the advantage of tracking corrupt players, become a bounty hunter. I am referring to the green players a corrupt player may happen upon while evading, and if the greens engage them, that corrupt player shouldn't gain more corruption for being engaged by those players. Simple. If you attack someone, you shouldn't give that player corruption.
hleV wrote: » Yes, just like red doesn't get dampened stats when a BH attacks them. An aggressive green literally does what a BH would, only without having actual BH status "activated". I think it works the same with purples (if not, then it should). So why are greens the exception? What did a random AGGRESSIVE green do exactly to deserve having his target have dampened stats and potential corruption increase if red decides to fight back and manage to win? It's an inconsistency no matter how you look at it. There is no reason to give aggressive greens such power against reds that nobody else has.
Raven016 wrote: » As AoC game rule to prevent PvP yes but as lore no. Try to explain the lore behind how much loot you get depending on player fighting back or not before he dies. Or why the corrupt player cannot store items in his own freehold.
NiKr wrote: » It comes down to risk and reward.BHs have their reward system on top of the red's loot, so their risk is higher. Purples have lowered penalties and the red's loot, but the red is free to kill them, so it balances out. Greens could lose more stuff on death, so the red can be dampened in his stats (as Depraved said - not always). Once again, a risk/reward balance. It's true for the red as well. You kill purples for free, but you're dampened. The loot is also lessened. Your survival is somewhat assured. The risk/reward balance comes from the relative rareness of flagged people within the surroundings of a PKer. BHs can find you (the risk), but you're completely free to fight them and have no stat dampen (easier surviving as the reward). The loot is lessened. Greens are your highest risk, because they give more corruption and you're dampened against them. But any random green can have good loot on them, because they weren't prepared to die at that moment, as a pvper/BHer would be. And they can't flag themselves up, so they'll always give more stuff on death. The system is built to protect the greens' gameplay, so obviously they'll be at the top of the danger scale. Of course PKers will see this as unfair, because they just want to kill everyone and not suffer the consequences. And yes, running away from greens is one of the consequences, that you should be ready for when you decide to PK someone.
NiKr wrote: » hleV wrote: » Yes, just like red doesn't get dampened stats when a BH attacks them. An aggressive green literally does what a BH would, only without having actual BH status "activated". I think it works the same with purples (if not, then it should). So why are greens the exception? What did a random AGGRESSIVE green do exactly to deserve having his target have dampened stats and potential corruption increase if red decides to fight back and manage to win? It's an inconsistency no matter how you look at it. There is no reason to give aggressive greens such power against reds that nobody else has. It comes down to risk and reward.BHs have their reward system on top of the red's loot, so their risk is higher. Purples have lowered penalties and the red's loot, but the red is free to kill them, so it balances out. Greens could lose more stuff on death, so the red can be dampened in his stats (as Depraved said - not always). Once again, a risk/reward balance. It's true for the red as well. You kill purples for free, but you're dampened. The loot is also lessened. Your survival is somewhat assured. The risk/reward balance comes from the relative rareness of flagged people within the surroundings of a PKer. BHs can find you (the risk), but you're completely free to fight them and have no stat dampen (easier surviving as the reward). The loot is lessened. Greens are your highest risk, because they give more corruption and you're dampened against them. But any random green can have good loot on them, because they weren't prepared to die at that moment, as a pvper/BHer would be. And they can't flag themselves up, so they'll always give more stuff on death. The system is built to protect the greens' gameplay, so obviously they'll be at the top of the danger scale. Of course PKers will see this as unfair, because they just want to kill everyone and not suffer the consequences. And yes, running away from greens is one of the consequences, that you should be ready for when you decide to PK someone.
NiKr wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » As AoC game rule to prevent PvP yes but as lore no. Try to explain the lore behind how much loot you get depending on player fighting back or not before he dies. Or why the corrupt player cannot store items in his own freehold. I could come up with whatever asspull I want to explain this in-lore. It won't matter though, because I'm not the one writing the lore. But as a counterargument, you don't also know the entire lore of the game rn, so you wouldn't even know if there is a "logical" explanation for those things in the game.
hleV wrote: » Depraved wrote: » so if you are red and a green attacks you first you shouldn't get your stats dampened? Yes, just like red doesn't get dampened stats when a BH attacks them. An aggressive green literally does what a BH would, only without having actual BH status "activated". I think it works the same with purples (if not, then it should). So why are greens the exception? What did a random AGGRESSIVE green do exactly to deserve having his target have dampened stats and potential corruption increase if red decides to fight back and manage to win? It's an inconsistency no matter how you look at it. There is no reason to give aggressive greens such power against reds that nobody else has. Depraved wrote: » 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. Honestly, yes, I do view it from solo perspective as that's the easiest way to determine if the system is designed well. I don't believe it is specifically designed to only properly work with groups of players and not solos. If we take into consideration extra factors that you and/or the opponent is going to have help at all times, the discussion will lead nowhere. And here "doesnt want other people to have an advantage over you when you are red" you skipped the important part "only in self-defense". I have no issue whatsoever with dampened stats against poor PvEers like Dygz that have no intent on taking advantage of my corrupted status and try to kill me and potentially loot my gear piece. Depraved wrote: » 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 If it's the way you say it is, then that's very good in my book.
hleV wrote: » Okay, let's try again: What did an INNOCENT green PvEer do to deserve not being able to flag purple to halve their death penalty against a red? The risks and rewards of green vs red specifically are plain stupid, in no way improve the corruption system, only overcomplicate and mess it up.
Ravicus wrote: » so where is the risk/vs reward for the green gatherer?
