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.
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, and when you call them out they say something like that, like mobs arent owned by you, etc etc. they come to your spot when there are literally 10 other spots available and force you to play in a different way. maybe i wanna chill and kill mobs but now i have to go hardcore and give my 200% and min max how i kill mobs and try to screw you out of your loop. doable but stressful. and then, if i decide to go to another spot, they follow me around and kill the same mobs im killing, just to annoy me and disrupt my gameplay. they also exclude you from parties if you arent playing the build they want you to play or they kick you right before the boss dies so they get all the loot.
but hey they complain when you kill them in ow pvp because they are being forced blah blah blah. the double standard is stronk.
so honestly id be very happy with a mechanic that would punish players if they came to farm on my spot, especially when there are other spots available. the more free spots, the bigger the punishment they get. even if it sounds a bit ridiculous or too much.
its also extra annoying when they complain about pvp because it forces them to play a certain way, but apparently they can complain about that, no problem. but when a pvper complains that he is being pve griefed or harassed and being forced to play a certain way, their excuse is "oh you dont own the mobs or the land".
its also hypocritical when they criticize a pvp player because he has to do a lot of pve to get pvp gear or good at pvp, yet if they complain about having to do pvp to do pve or get pve gear and progression, their complain is somehow valid, while the complaint of the pvper isnt.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree. People on forums use sometime weird arguments.
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 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.
How about killing pigs? Can we put them to sleep maybe?
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.
Those players the corrupt one may happen to meet while evading could be looking specifically for him, knowing that is in the area. Makes the game interesting from the perspective of both sides. More risk
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.
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.
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.
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.
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
so where is the risk/vs reward for the green gatherer?
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.
True. We have to make educated guesses until we get more information. But I am sure the game mechanic as it works was chosen first and later the lore:
Corruption tarnishes the character’s spiritual essence. Their ability to utilize the Verra’s magic found within them is diminished.[3] – Steven Sharif
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.
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.
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.
then free pking because greens wont attack you, ever to avoid the stat dampening and they will wait for you to hit them first, but you wont xDDD.
cant talk too much from the solo players perspective when the game is designed for gorup play. thats like saying solo basketball or soccer player should be able to do this or that when the game is a team game xd
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.
"Innocent" greens shouldn't even go for reds. There's BHs for that, because that's literally their job. The innocent green is supposed to just mind their business and be wary of a PKer, because that person was willing to take a huge risk for another green's reward, which might mean that they'll be willing to go for that innocent green's rewards too.
All the other aggressive greens should know what they're getting into when they attack a red. Not flagging up and potentially taking a bigger death penalty comes with that.
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.
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.
dont try to kill someone red o.o if you do, you accept that you might die. if you win, you still get better rewards. thats the risk vs reward.
you can always run if you see them coming you know...
As AoC game rule to deter griefing 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.
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.
Those players the corrupt one may happen to meet while evading could be looking specifically for him, knowing that is in the area. Makes the game interesting from the perspective of both sides. More risk
Risk scales with the amount of corruption, so the risk is proportionate to the crime. The risk is there, no need to exponentially multiply for actions that aren't 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?
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.
Those players the corrupt one may happen to meet while evading could be looking specifically for him, knowing that is in the area. Makes the game interesting from the perspective of both sides. More risk
Risk scales with the amount of corruption, so the risk is proportionate to the crime. The risk is there, no need to exponentially multiply for actions that aren't griefing
But the risk is that you see a solo gatherer and you have no idea if he has friends nearby or not.
You take the risk and they hunt you down to recover what you stole from one of them.
But they are not good enough and you kill a few. Eventually your debuf taken from corruption will make you equal to their level and you die. Seems a fair ending.
Can also be that those greens are not the gatherer friends but gankers who gank you. Then they will fight each-other unless they are in a team.
There is no way you can say the game is unfair with gankers if Steven wants to have it this way.
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.
Those players the corrupt one may happen to meet while evading could be looking specifically for him, knowing that is in the area. Makes the game interesting from the perspective of both sides. More risk
Risk scales with the amount of corruption, so the risk is proportionate to the crime. The risk is there, no need to exponentially multiply for actions that aren't griefing
But the risk is that you see a solo gatherer and you have no idea if he has friends nearby or not.
You take the risk and they hunt you down to recover what you stole from one of them.
But they are not good enough and you kill a few. Eventually your debuf taken from corruption will make you equal to their level and you die. Seems a fair ending.
Can also be that those greens are not the gatherer friends but gankers who gank you. Then they will fight each-other unless they are in a team.
There is no way you can say the game is unfair with gankers if Steven wants to have it this way.
Once they choose to hunt you down, there is no longer a grief factor. So no need for more corruption. Being a better player doesn't call for corruption. And the only reason I believe a player would be able to take a group on is if they were lower level, so the corrupted would be majorly corrupted initially anyway for the first kill.
Gankers would be the same scenario, if they engage, they void any griefing variable by the corrupted player being attacked in that specific engagement. So if the corrupted player somehow wins against many, they did so in defense, and don't need more corruption.
The only reason you should gain corruption as a PvPer, is if you are killing non-combatants who don't fight back or are too low level.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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, and when you call them out they say something like that, like mobs arent owned by you, etc etc. they come to your spot when there are literally 10 other spots available and force you to play in a different way.
Carebears would prefer to play on a separate PvE-only server, so... I don't see how Carebears are forcing anything on PvPers - especially not for Ashes.
"Your spot" is not a concept that is supported by any MMORPG game mecahnic I'm aware of.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Once they choose to hunt you down, there is no longer a grief factor. So no need for more corruption. Being a better player doesn't call for corruption.
Part of the Risk of going Red is being treated like a monster by Greens.
If you don't want more Corruption, you can choose not to fight back - just as Greens you killed chose not to fight back because they did not wish to flag Purple.
Comments
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, and when you call them out they say something like that, like mobs arent owned by you, etc etc. they come to your spot when there are literally 10 other spots available and force you to play in a different way. maybe i wanna chill and kill mobs but now i have to go hardcore and give my 200% and min max how i kill mobs and try to screw you out of your loop. doable but stressful. and then, if i decide to go to another spot, they follow me around and kill the same mobs im killing, just to annoy me and disrupt my gameplay. they also exclude you from parties if you arent playing the build they want you to play or they kick you right before the boss dies so they get all the loot.
but hey they complain when you kill them in ow pvp because they are being forced blah blah blah. the double standard is stronk.
so honestly id be very happy with a mechanic that would punish players if they came to farm on my spot, especially when there are other spots available. the more free spots, the bigger the punishment they get. even if it sounds a bit ridiculous or too much.
its also extra annoying when they complain about pvp because it forces them to play a certain way, but apparently they can complain about that, no problem. but when a pvper complains that he is being pve griefed or harassed and being forced to play a certain way, their excuse is "oh you dont own the mobs or the land".
its also hypocritical when they criticize a pvp player because he has to do a lot of pve to get pvp gear or good at pvp, yet if they complain about having to do pvp to do pve or get pve gear and progression, their complain is somehow valid, while the complaint of the pvper isnt.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If it's the way you say it is, then that's very good in my book.
I agree. People on forums use sometime weird arguments.
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.
How about killing pigs? Can we put them to sleep maybe?
Those players the corrupt one may happen to meet while evading could be looking specifically for him, knowing that is in the area. Makes the game interesting from the perspective of both sides. More risk
- 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.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.
so where is the risk/vs reward for the green gatherer?
True. We have to make educated guesses until we get more information. But I am sure the game mechanic as it works was chosen first and later the lore:
Corruption tarnishes the character’s spiritual essence. Their ability to utilize the Verra’s magic found within them is diminished.[3] – Steven Sharif
then free pking because greens wont attack you, ever to avoid the stat dampening and they will wait for you to hit them first, but you wont xDDD.
cant talk too much from the solo players perspective when the game is designed for gorup play. thats like saying solo basketball or soccer player should be able to do this or that when the game is a team game xd
All the other aggressive greens should know what they're getting into when they attack a red. Not flagging up and potentially taking a bigger death penalty comes with that.
The risk is higher death penalties. The reward is potential red's loot (which could be pretty high).
dont try to kill someone red o.o if you do, you accept that you might die. if you win, you still get better rewards. thats the risk vs reward.
you can always run if you see them coming you know...
But if he doesn't then you understand why I said that some things make no sense.
I fixed it for you
Risk scales with the amount of corruption, so the risk is proportionate to the crime. The risk is there, no need to exponentially multiply for actions that aren't griefing
But the risk is that you see a solo gatherer and you have no idea if he has friends nearby or not.
You take the risk and they hunt you down to recover what you stole from one of them.
But they are not good enough and you kill a few. Eventually your debuf taken from corruption will make you equal to their level and you die. Seems a fair ending.
Can also be that those greens are not the gatherer friends but gankers who gank you. Then they will fight each-other unless they are in a team.
There is no way you can say the game is unfair with gankers if Steven wants to have it this way.
Once they choose to hunt you down, there is no longer a grief factor. So no need for more corruption. Being a better player doesn't call for corruption. And the only reason I believe a player would be able to take a group on is if they were lower level, so the corrupted would be majorly corrupted initially anyway for the first kill.
Gankers would be the same scenario, if they engage, they void any griefing variable by the corrupted player being attacked in that specific engagement. So if the corrupted player somehow wins against many, they did so in defense, and don't need more corruption.
The only reason you should gain corruption as a PvPer, is if you are killing non-combatants who don't fight back or are too low level.
"Your spot" is not a concept that is supported by any MMORPG game mecahnic I'm aware of.
If you don't want more Corruption, you can choose not to fight back - just as Greens you killed chose not to fight back because they did not wish to flag Purple.