Dolyem wrote: » unknownsystemerror wrote: » Percimes wrote: » A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks... I prefer your simpler solution. (If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange) Yes, that is true. What he is upset about is that anyone who attacks him is going to stay green. Which if he fights back and kills them, he is going to accrue even more corruption. So funnily enough, for those that don't want to be caught in an increasing spiral of exp debt and time sink, they are going to have to do the dreaded thing that got them corrupt in the first place. Just stand there and take it. Working as intended. "Working as intended" or making PvP not fun? Feels much more like the 2nd one. Nice try carebear
unknownsystemerror wrote: » Percimes wrote: » A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks... I prefer your simpler solution. (If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange) Yes, that is true. What he is upset about is that anyone who attacks him is going to stay green. Which if he fights back and kills them, he is going to accrue even more corruption. So funnily enough, for those that don't want to be caught in an increasing spiral of exp debt and time sink, they are going to have to do the dreaded thing that got them corrupt in the first place. Just stand there and take it. Working as intended.
Percimes wrote: » A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks... I prefer your simpler solution. (If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange)
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers? Who determines what's an "honor PK" and what's not? If that PKer have a 0 PK count - he should be able to clear his corruption quickly. And if he had a high count - well then he's not quite honorable, is he. Overcomplicating the system will lead to confusion and complaints (sandal knows we've had a ton already). Having a ton of small nuances and particular rules, that would properly differentiate honorable and dishonorable kills - would be that exact overcomplication.
Solvryn wrote: » Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers?
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations. Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up. Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed. So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine. Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response. Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers? The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended. I think players are more flexible to adapt to a corruption system than the system to be adjusted for specific cases. One can grief by playing music in voice chat or causing some game sounds repeatedly or using rp emotes. Players can move away. What other kind of griefing you can see where they are green? Harvesting resources in places you do not want them to harvest? I think that is intended by Steven. Therefore he doesn't offer the tools to stop them unless you start a war. People trying to destroy others guilds, sabotaging, being a political candyass and being underhanded. There’s a litany of ways to grief someone. Should we punish an entire guild for the whims of a single player? I don’t think so. I have chronic tinnitus if someone does annoying shit like blast music over in game comms you’re damn right Im going to kill them.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations. Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up. Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed. So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine. Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response. Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers? The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended. I think players are more flexible to adapt to a corruption system than the system to be adjusted for specific cases. One can grief by playing music in voice chat or causing some game sounds repeatedly or using rp emotes. Players can move away. What other kind of griefing you can see where they are green? Harvesting resources in places you do not want them to harvest? I think that is intended by Steven. Therefore he doesn't offer the tools to stop them unless you start a war.
Solvryn wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations. Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up. Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed. So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine. Like I've said on this thread, some people have a good reason to be corrupted; griefers can be any color and killing them is always the appropriate response. Why punish the honor PKer for killing griefers? The system definitely just needs to be expanded upon, because it's not going to entirely work as intended.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations. Or it could be seen as the law of nature on Verra. People who spill innocent blood get harsher punishments. And one of those punishments is a "monster's nature status", which lets other people kill the PKer w/o flagging up. Call the process of flagging up "temptation of corruption" and you have yourself a justification why the death penalties are decreased in it. The "nature" is trying to trick you into becoming a part of it, so it gives you some benefits, but as soon as you go a bit too far - you're doomed. So like I said, the story/lore could be twisted 20 ways to sunday. And any and all justifications can be thought up to make the system seem fine.
Solvryn wrote: » Corrupted players aren't thematically criminal, they're corrupted. Criminals are people who break laws, corruption isn’t a law. One is akin to sin, the other is breaking some cultures rules meant to unify tribes into nations.
Sybil_Lanel wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » unknownsystemerror wrote: » Percimes wrote: » A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks... I prefer your simpler solution. (If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange) Yes, that is true. What he is upset about is that anyone who attacks him is going to stay green. Which if he fights back and kills them, he is going to accrue even more corruption. So funnily enough, for those that don't want to be caught in an increasing spiral of exp debt and time sink, they are going to have to do the dreaded thing that got them corrupt in the first place. Just stand there and take it. Working as intended. "Working as intended" or making PvP not fun? Feels much more like the 2nd one. Nice try carebear I wouldn't be going around calling people carebears about this. You want a solution to green player killing you I got one. Just don't get corrupted. Making a 4th flag seems like Pkers trying to get out of their punishment for Pking. And like others said let's just test it out first and see how it goes. There is not problem yet as we haven't used the syste.
Dygz wrote: » Bounty Hunters are associated with Military Nodes, IIRC???
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red. Nice finding. With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked. Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes. While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it. how is it good if not a single one of those kills are actually griefing? I will assume there is no griefing in this game until I see somebody in an emotional grief state. If is just a bit upset or even very upset, that is for me just a player which has chosen the wrong game. When I say good, it is from Steven's perspective. Not from player's perspective which want to kill. Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different. But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system. Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. Though some seem to be unable to see the difference between corruption for griefing and corruption to defend ones node. The way how the game is setup, seems to want to create uncertainty. You harvest wood and you see a green. You hope is a nice peaceful player but it comes and kills you. If you could know it is a player who kills often other players, you could run. But the game want's to hide such players behind a fake green color meaning peaceful non combatant. But this cumulative PK value is acting as a game rule, not visible to the player but still punishing the one which kills too often. We have Stevens very own definition of griefingGriefing in Ashes of Creation is defined as impacting another player's gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. It is something that is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] So following that, and the fact that corruptions sole purpose is to deter that. PKing non-combatants purposely trying to harm your node is not griefing. It has nothing to do with ones emotional state. It purely depends on ones intent. In other words, camping or killing low level players, or barring someone from content for the sole purpose of harassing the player. So if a player has only accrued PKs through non-griefing corruption kills, it is a bad design. Steven has not communicated yet everything and tests must till be done in Alpha 2. Changes will be made. For low level players we have to see how the leveling areas are made. I see easier ways to deal with that than adjusting the corruption mechanic to allow players to punish those who they perceive as griefers. A low level trying to level up is a different scenario from a low level going to over harvest enemy node's resources. Steven sets up the game in a complicated way and it might be that there is no solution to everything. Players have to deal with that. Maybe is better that way that having an ideal setting where you can do only what Steven wants. After 100 caravans I might call this "the caravan game", if I have no choice but to do them.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red. Nice finding. With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked. Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes. While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it. how is it good if not a single one of those kills are actually griefing? I will assume there is no griefing in this game until I see somebody in an emotional grief state. If is just a bit upset or even very upset, that is for me just a player which has chosen the wrong game. When I say good, it is from Steven's perspective. Not from player's perspective which want to kill. Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different. But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system. Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. Though some seem to be unable to see the difference between corruption for griefing and corruption to defend ones node. The way how the game is setup, seems to want to create uncertainty. You harvest wood and you see a green. You hope is a nice peaceful player but it comes and kills you. If you could know it is a player who kills often other players, you could run. But the game want's to hide such players behind a fake green color meaning peaceful non combatant. But this cumulative PK value is acting as a game rule, not visible to the player but still punishing the one which kills too often. We have Stevens very own definition of griefingGriefing in Ashes of Creation is defined as impacting another player's gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. It is something that is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] So following that, and the fact that corruptions sole purpose is to deter that. PKing non-combatants purposely trying to harm your node is not griefing. It has nothing to do with ones emotional state. It purely depends on ones intent. In other words, camping or killing low level players, or barring someone from content for the sole purpose of harassing the player. So if a player has only accrued PKs through non-griefing corruption kills, it is a bad design.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red. Nice finding. With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked. Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes. While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it. how is it good if not a single one of those kills are actually griefing? I will assume there is no griefing in this game until I see somebody in an emotional grief state. If is just a bit upset or even very upset, that is for me just a player which has chosen the wrong game. When I say good, it is from Steven's perspective. Not from player's perspective which want to kill. Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different. But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system. Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. Though some seem to be unable to see the difference between corruption for griefing and corruption to defend ones node. The way how the game is setup, seems to want to create uncertainty. You harvest wood and you see a green. You hope is a nice peaceful player but it comes and kills you. If you could know it is a player who kills often other players, you could run. But the game want's to hide such players behind a fake green color meaning peaceful non combatant. But this cumulative PK value is acting as a game rule, not visible to the player but still punishing the one which kills too often.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red. Nice finding. With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked. Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes. While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it. how is it good if not a single one of those kills are actually griefing?
Raven016 wrote: » HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red. Nice finding. With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked. Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes. While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it.
HumblePuffin wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter. Not exactly: PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1] Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4] This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red.
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems. I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter.
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone. so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it? remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.
Dolyem wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?). I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company. But generally: -Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing. -Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play. Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this? Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
Solvryn wrote: » It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different. But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system. Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. Though some seem to be unable to see the difference between corruption for griefing and corruption to defend ones node.
Raven016 wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups. A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different. But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system.
NiKr wrote: » Guild wars also exist and I'd imagine that's easier to participate in rather than constantly change your citizenship just to find a node that's in a war. Mainly because of this
Ravicus wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing. That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession. Corruption is designed to deter that. If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much. But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate. So diminishing returns on an internal corruption timer sounds like an idea. Or at least that what comes to mind to me. It's a hard one to solve honestly. Because the system would need to accurately differentiate between intent to grief and actual PvP Yeah, and I've ran into this countless of times, you have players whom any slight disturbance to their gameplay is griefing to them. Just like when I was there and "your red, your dead" turned from full loot to no loot. When inconvenience is grief they have bigger issues than a video game. Griefing has deliberate, malicious intent behind it. I think there's just a better way to improve the system and with enough brainstorming it could be figured out. I agree there is a better design. The perfect way for them to not get griefed is to not play a pvp game where they can get killed. It really sucks that carebears play pvp and cry foul all the time. And if the system does not work they repeatedly report you to the devs to take action. Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all.
Solvryn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing. That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession. Corruption is designed to deter that. If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much. But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate. So diminishing returns on an internal corruption timer sounds like an idea. Or at least that what comes to mind to me. It's a hard one to solve honestly. Because the system would need to accurately differentiate between intent to grief and actual PvP Yeah, and I've ran into this countless of times, you have players whom any slight disturbance to their gameplay is griefing to them. Just like when I was there and "your red, your dead" turned from full loot to no loot. When inconvenience is grief they have bigger issues than a video game. Griefing has deliberate, malicious intent behind it. I think there's just a better way to improve the system and with enough brainstorming it could be figured out.
Dolyem wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing. That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession. Corruption is designed to deter that. If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much. But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate. So diminishing returns on an internal corruption timer sounds like an idea. Or at least that what comes to mind to me. It's a hard one to solve honestly. Because the system would need to accurately differentiate between intent to grief and actual PvP
Solvryn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing. That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession. Corruption is designed to deter that. If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much. But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate. So diminishing returns on an internal corruption timer sounds like an idea. Or at least that what comes to mind to me.
Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing. That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession. Corruption is designed to deter that. If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much. But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing. That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession. Corruption is designed to deter that.
Dolyem wrote: » I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing.
Ravicus wrote: » Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way. I agree with what you say. My point is corruption is basically flagging unflagging, at least for the greens. So its one sided really. Sure you can kill the green, but you wont do it repeatedly. So you will have a bunch of greens not flagging doing the gathering. Only one side is punished. Does not sound fun to me.
Depraved wrote: » then we will get what happened in new world. no ow pvp, only in certain parts and for like the first month only >: ive played a few games with toggle pvp and i have to say it kind of ruins ow pvp...we will get a swarm of players gathering non stop, destroying the land, and you wont be able to kill them or protect your land from over farming. so how would you guys deal with that? remember that changes made to one system affect other systems. now there wont be conflicts and alliances over resources, because people wont even pvp for them. no pvp for bosses. no pvp in ow dungeons. no pvp for scarce resources, so people who just camp then(bots) will win and nothing really you can do about it. and before anyone says, well auto flag areas...still doesnt solve the issues mentioned above in non auto flagged areas. the game is designed with conflict in mind...ow pvp is what fuels node wars, clan wars, etc. so now you have to go and change everything. giving incentives to be flagged also doesnt work. most people wont want the risk of losing their stuff because they have been gathering for 2 hours, if they can avoid that risk, pvers wont flag (or they could just gather then get summoned by a family member to town...). at least everybody is on equal grounds now with the current system. Whether you are attacked or not, depends mostly on the friends and enemies you make along the way.
hleV wrote: » You're only talking about how to work around the issue, not the issue itself. Most of your workarounds are based on assumptions, too (like comparing hiding from others to L2). You don't know how it'll be in AoC. The issue remains. Is it easy to avoid/work around? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't remove the issue itself. AGGRESSIVE greens should not have any advantage over BHs whatsoever when it comes to fighting reds, and if the system is kept as is, greens will. To summarize my point, stat-dampening should work as a means to stop you from going on killing sprees against innocent greens, not screw you in the case that a green decides to attack you (it's a job for BHs after all).
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing. That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession. Corruption is designed to deter that. If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much. But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate. even if he isnt trying ot hurt the node. if someone is randomly picking flowers and i kill that person, that isnt griefing. if they come back and i killed them again, that isnt griefing. if they come back 10 times and i kill them 10 times, that isnt griefing. maybe im trying to get the flowers for myself and dont want others gathring near me. if i follow him around from area to area for no reason and just keep killing him, thats griefing. if i go and kill level 10 as a lvl 30 over and over for no reason, thats also griefing. however, if i kill low levels because i want the mobs in the earea or the flowers, or maybe im helping a friend levle up, that isnt griefing. as long as you have something to gain from killing someone else, that isnt griefing. griefing is when you follow someone around with the intention of making him quit the game.
Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane.
Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all.
Veeshan wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Ravicus wrote: » Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all. LMAO Because it's the Carebears asking for change here??? Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane... Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption. With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane. i see more griefing done by PvE player base than PvP tbh, puling mobs on somone harvesting so u can steal their node, instant casting a spell to tag a mob while somone about to hit it. Then there thing people see as part of the game where other see it as greifing, for example under cut spamming the AH to the point of there no profit for players then buying all there stuff and relisting them for original price, some people will see that as part of the gameplay to acquire wealth while other will see it as griefing manilpulating the marker (Which is illegal in most cases in the world with the stock market) but fine in games.
NiKr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » And to have enough Corrupted players that the Bounty Hunter system is used often enough for his goals. I think I'll start asking about it for q&a, cause we haven't heard a thing about it and I feel like it's already gone.
Dygz wrote: » And to have enough Corrupted players that the Bounty Hunter system is used often enough for his goals.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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
Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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
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.
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.
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.
Raven016 wrote: » Maybe he imagined the game initially with more PvP and later he changed his mind and added the deep ocean to push the PvPers there and make the corruption stronger on the land and safer for PvEers who can sometime PvP too.
NiKr wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Maybe he imagined the game initially with more PvP and later he changed his mind and added the deep ocean to push the PvPers there and make the corruption stronger on the land and safer for PvEers who can sometime PvP too. Which is why I'm gonna ask if it still exists. He might've removed it, because he no longer wants PKing to be a frequent enough thing for that profession to exist.
Depraved wrote: » even if im playing in a pve server and lets say just do pvp in arenas, carebears still force their gameplay on me by making me work harder for mobs, and making me do pve to be able to pvp.
Depraved wrote: » "Your materials" is not a concept that is supported by any MMORPG game mechanic I'm aware of.
Depraved wrote: » you log in, you accept the game rules of people killing you and taking your gatherables. they belong to mother nature, not you.
Depraved wrote: » see how ridiculous is the argument when you switch it around, yet somehow its ok when carebears complain, but it isnt when pvpers complain. double standard at its finest.
Solvryn wrote: » I hope they revisit the idea with fresh blood and people who aren’t afraid of PvP.
Solvryn wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Maybe he imagined the game initially with more PvP and later he changed his mind and added the deep ocean to push the PvPers there and make the corruption stronger on the land and safer for PvEers who can sometime PvP too. Which is why I'm gonna ask if it still exists. He might've removed it, because he no longer wants PKing to be a frequent enough thing for that profession to exist. Unless he changes his mind in A2. Originally Bounty Hunting was going to be a player contract but then a team of guys who didn’t like the idea somehow convinced Steven not to do it. I hope they revisit the idea with fresh blood and people who aren’t afraid of PvP.
NiKr wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » I hope they revisit the idea with fresh blood and people who aren’t afraid of PvP. I hope it hasn't been removed too. I've been a proponent of a better BH system that would also promote more pvp for a long time now.
