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.
By 'team of guys' you mean vocal players on forum or discord?
I meant that very graciously, mostly the community is small groups of people trying to get the game to fit what they want it to be.
It was a conversation on the discord yeah.
In Asherons Call there was an add on called Pk hunter, this score is very similar to that.
It recorded who you killed, when you killed them, TTK or fast you killed them, how many times you killed them, was pretty cool tbh.
It’s supposed to have a negative connotation to it, but it doesn’t to me. I think PvP/PK metrics are good, not bad. I think something similar would be a bonus to Ashes which I may include in my idea to expand the corruption system.
A few things:
-There are plenty of PvP opportunities that don't involve Corruption, the entire Deep Sea as example.
-Corruption is a Penalty, not a Playstyle.
-Being attacked by Greens is part of the Corruption Penalty.
-The amount of Corrupt EXP Penalty will not be lowered, or else the Bounty Hunters can't intercept in time.
-If you think the Corruption Penalty is unfair, wait until you hear about being an Enemy Of The State...
1
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
You drop more resources when you don't fight back so this isn't accurate info. If I'm feeling petty one day I won't fight back but if I fight back and still die I lose less of my resources.
That might be true but how fast can you loot with the new bag system and also how fast can you run to get away with the recources?
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
Bruh you do realize it's the PvPers asking for more "lenient changes" to the PvP system. Carebearss aren't arguing for that. I've mostly seen the cold take of "let's just wait for alpha 2". Which is what we should do to be honest. This thread was started by someone who is asking for more lenient pvp changes which Carebears wouldnt ask for.
I am a pvp'r, not sure what you are trying to express to me here.
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
My fear is that bounty hunters will be few and far inbetween, as there will be minimal PKing going on.
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.
The word "grief" is to me meaningless when I see it used by players on forums. It is used for anything they don't like.
But the corruption works well as it is, putting more corruption onto the corrupt player. But I assume the map is large enough and the density of players will be low and once you vanish in woods you will not see anyone soon. Except bounty hunters. Still is unclear to me how you can clean the corruption. If there are more NPC spots than players then you can do that.
The weak part of the system is that a bounty hunter can come with a team of greens, collaborate and let the green be killed to be able to defeat the corrupt player and take more of his gear.
If this was already mentioned, I missed it.
As it is now, I feel that the Bounty Hunter mechanic should be removed from the game and leave the corruption as it is.
Alternatively the corruption to be lenient far from nodes and stronger nearby. @Dolyem Would it be ok if the corrupt player is allowed to defend against green players without getting more corruption in remote areas, far from nodes? (as far as it can be considering that the entire land is covered by them. Maybe just far from high level nodes which mean stronger civilization.)
That'd be fair if I was using my own definition of griefing as my basis. But I am using Steven's definition of griefing. So it's entirely meaningful.
And your point with greens roaming with bounty hunters is another good point as to why greens engaging fights shouldn't give more corruption.
And seeing as nodes envelop the entirety of the game where corruption is viable, I don't see what you're trying to say here?
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.
Wonder how many of those flower picking are gonna grief the person what killed them by keep running back and dieing over and over again to stack corruption on the guy defending his flower patch.
I would say thats also griefing on the flip side.
PvE griefing is real in games these days and people neglect that. like newworld where unflagged people would run mobs onto people harvesting to steal nodes off them when the mobs agro the guy hitting the node for example, or in WoW where somone would tag mobs with an instant cast spell when somone casting a frostbolt or something to steal the mobs (lucky they changed tagging mechanics in AoC to reduce this) but there alot of PvE griefing that people ignore and only focus on being killed is griefing
pve griefing is real and i have mentioned it before. but if i kill you and you come back and i have lready cleansed my corruption and i kill you again, you arent karma bombing me xD
also, if u keep coming back to give me more corruption, that isnt griefing
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.
Fundamentally, RPGs are PvE. PvP is inherently an addition to RPGs.
So, PvE as a requirement for progression in an RPG is not forcing anything.
Also, Carebear means averse to combat - especially killing stuff.. I don't see how a Carebear being averse to combat makes you work harder mobs. How does a Carebear being averse to combat make you do PvE to be able to PvP in an Arena??
When I'm in a group in Tabletop RPGs, I have to be sure my Carebear playstyle allows other players to sometimes engage in combat because I will strive to prevent combat using my CHA skills.
But, that's not a thing in MMORPGs.
"Your materials" is not a concept that is supported by any MMORPG game mechanic I'm aware of.
I haven't said anything about "my materials", but...
"My materials" would be the materials that are in my Inventory.
And that is a mechanic supported by every MMORPG I'm aware of.
There are also MMORPGs that have mechanics that allow "my materials" to be lost in various ways upon death. Some MMORPGs have mechanics for "full loot" upon death.
Your point is very muddy, but I think we agree, here.
you log in, you accept the game rules of people killing you and taking your gatherables. they belong to mother nature, not you.
Taking my gatherables is mostly irrelevant to me.
What I care about is non-consensual PvP. I don't really even care about PKing, necessarily.
I don't log into games that have permanent zones with (Corruption-free) FFA PvP zones - which is why adding that to Ashes is a deal-breaker for me. I don't play MMORPGs that have auto-consent to PvP just for logging in.
So, again, we agree.
I am theoretically OK with non-consensual PvP being punished by Corruption. I'm not OK with auto-consent PvP. I don't play MMORPGs with auto-consent PvP.
People have asked me to play Ashes with them anyway. And I finally found the Ultimate Carebear way to do that by not pursuing any progression.
I won't have any gatherables in Ashes. So... yes. We agree that for me, when I play Ashes, there won't be "my materials" and "gatherables" will effectively belong to mother nature since I will have 0 gatherables in my Inventory.
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.
It's the same when both complain about the game design and actually ask for the game design to be changed before we've tested it.
There is no double standard.
You'll notice that instead of me asking for the game design to change - I have changed the way I planned to play Ashes.
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.
Fundamentally, RPGs are PvE. PvP is inherently an addition to RPGs.
Fundamentally, multiplayer games are PVP. PVE is inherently an addition to multiplayer games.
also, couldnt you attack your party in the first version of tabletop dnd?
A few things:
-There are plenty of PvP opportunities that don't involve Corruption, the entire Deep Sea as example.
-Corruption is a Penalty, not a Playstyle.
-Being attacked by Greens is part of the Corruption Penalty.
-The amount of Corrupt EXP Penalty will not be lowered, or else the Bounty Hunters can't intercept in time.
-If you think the Corruption Penalty is unfair, wait until you hear about being an Enemy Of The State...
You'd don't fight for a node in open sea and I'll say it again, corruption is to penalize griefing. Defending yourself isn't griefing so it shouldn't be penalized.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A few things:
-There are plenty of PvP opportunities that don't involve Corruption, the entire Deep Sea as example.
-Corruption is a Penalty, not a Playstyle.
-Being attacked by Greens is part of the Corruption Penalty.
-The amount of Corrupt EXP Penalty will not be lowered, or else the Bounty Hunters can't intercept in time.
-If you think the Corruption Penalty is unfair, wait until you hear about being an Enemy Of The State...
prices in the store increase on that node and you also get a quest. @_@
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
if i kill you and you come back and i have already cleansed my corruption and i kill you again, you arent karma bombing me xD
if u keep coming back to give me more corruption, that isnt griefing
You cannot cleanse Corruption that quickly. Especially, with repeated kills of Greens. You can't cleanse your PK count quickly.
If you kill a Green repeatedly in quick succession, that is griefing by Steven's definition - and it will be punished by rapidly intensified Corruption penalties.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
also, couldnt you attack your party in the first version of tabletop dnd?
Theoretically, possible to physically attack your party.
Killing someone in your party occurred around .01%.
In 40 years of playing D&D with various groups around the country, someone killed a party member once and someone attacked a party member without killing anyone once.
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
also, couldnt you attack your party in the first version of tabletop dnd?
Theoretically, possible to physically attack your party.
Killing someone in your party occurred around .01%.
In 40 years of playing D&D with various groups around the country, someone killed a party member once and someone attacked a party member without killing anyone once.
Dude you need to check your quotes, I said neither of those. Drinking is bad this early in the morning bud.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Well... shit happens when you post in the wee hours of the morning after 10+ hours of work and 3+ hours of class.
(Also... these Forums don't have the best reply design.)
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.
My fear is that bounty hunters will be few and far inbetween, as there will be minimal PKing going on.
also, couldnt you attack your party in the first version of tabletop dnd?
Theoretically, possible to physically attack your party.
Killing someone in your party occurred around .01%.
In 40 years of playing D&D with various groups around the country, someone killed a party member once and someone attacked a party member without killing anyone once.
u sure?
first video game was Tennis for two, which is pvp.
first online game was maze war, a multiplayer shooter, which is pvp.
first tabletop game was some egyptian game around 5000 years ago for 2 players. again, pvp.
first sport (sports are games as well) were wrestling and boxing. and wrestling has existed for thousands of years as a form of entertainment, you know..we call that a game.
no one killed your party in dnd because you play with carebears. if you play dnd with me (and probably @Arya_Yeshe) we would most likely kill the party and take your loot, then finish the quest ourselves, then he would pvp me and the victor takes all.
Okay, let's try again: What did an INNOCENT green PvEer do to deserve not being able to flag purple to halve their death penalty against a red? The risks and rewards of green vs red specifically are plain stupid, in no way improve the corruption system, only overcomplicate and mess it up.
"Innocent" greens shouldn't even go for reds. There's BHs for that, because that's literally their job. The innocent green is supposed to just mind their business and be wary of a PKer, because that person was willing to take a huge risk for another green's reward, which might mean that they'll be willing to go for that innocent green's rewards too.
dont try to kill someone red o.o if you do, you accept that you might die. if you win, you still get better rewards. thats the risk vs reward.
you can always run if you see them coming you know...
@NiKr@Depraved Again, I'm talking about INNOCENT green PvEer, not AGGRESSIVE green. Said PvEer just minds their own business and doesn't want any PvP. What did they do to deserve not having a way to flag purple before they die? Where's the reward here? Whatever a PvPer could potentially gain in this case does not apply to an innocent PvEer, so they're screwed solely because the player that's attacking them happens to be red rather than purple. This specific rule works against the very system that's supposed to deter 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.
If greens try to hunt down a red and fail, that's on them, red shouldn't be additionally punished for holding their ground (which is NOT GRIEFING for god's sake). Already works that way with BHs and purples, no reason to be different with greens that consent to PvP a red. Consensual PvP is not a crime in AoC, the name of your color should not have any say in that.
Okay, let's try again: What did an INNOCENT green PvEer do to deserve not being able to flag purple to halve their death penalty against a red? The risks and rewards of green vs red specifically are plain stupid, in no way improve the corruption system, only overcomplicate and mess it up.
"Innocent" greens shouldn't even go for reds. There's BHs for that, because that's literally their job. The innocent green is supposed to just mind their business and be wary of a PKer, because that person was willing to take a huge risk for another green's reward, which might mean that they'll be willing to go for that innocent green's rewards too.
dont try to kill someone red o.o if you do, you accept that you might die. if you win, you still get better rewards. thats the risk vs reward.
you can always run if you see them coming you know...
@NiKr@Depraved Again, I'm talking about INNOCENT green PvEer, not AGGRESSIVE green. Said PvEer just minds their own business and doesn't want any PvP. What did they do to deserve not having a way to flag purple before they die? Where's the reward here? Whatever a PvPer could potentially gain in this case does not apply to an innocent PvEer, so they're screwed solely because the player that's attacking them happens to be red rather than purple. This specific rule works against the very system that's supposed to deter griefing.
What’s an innocent player when you give consent four times before playing?
Okay, let's try again: What did an INNOCENT green PvEer do to deserve not being able to flag purple to halve their death penalty against a red? The risks and rewards of green vs red specifically are plain stupid, in no way improve the corruption system, only overcomplicate and mess it up.
"Innocent" greens shouldn't even go for reds. There's BHs for that, because that's literally their job. The innocent green is supposed to just mind their business and be wary of a PKer, because that person was willing to take a huge risk for another green's reward, which might mean that they'll be willing to go for that innocent green's rewards too.
dont try to kill someone red o.o if you do, you accept that you might die. if you win, you still get better rewards. thats the risk vs reward.
you can always run if you see them coming you know...
@NiKr@Depraved Again, I'm talking about INNOCENT green PvEer, not AGGRESSIVE green. Said PvEer just minds their own business and doesn't want any PvP. What did they do to deserve not having a way to flag purple before they die? Where's the reward here? Whatever a PvPer could potentially gain in this case does not apply to an innocent PvEer, so they're screwed solely because the player that's attacking them happens to be red rather than purple. This specific rule works against the very system that's supposed to deter griefing.
they have a chance at killing the red player. or literally run before they get engaged. seeing someone red in the distance running towards you its kind of a tell. they might not even be carrying anything and wont drop anything. also, innocent is subjective.
if you change the system and make the disctinction between passive and agressive green, then it will be abused. again, you are just talking from the perspective of how you want to play and you dont care how the system affects other things. you just dont wanna be fked when a red comes and kills you and you dont wanna be fked when you start killing greens.
So do BHs and purples. PvE greens are screwed (no desire to PvP and no way to halve the death penalty), PvP greens are rewarded (fighting a potentially stat-dampened opponent who might hesitate to kill you if they don't want more corruption). The risk-reward ratio is inconsistent with others and pretty unfair.
or literally run before they get engaged. seeing someone red in the distance running towards you its kind of a tell. they might not even be carrying anything and wont drop anything. also, innocent is subjective.
That's the same as saying "jUsT dOn'T pK". Please stop saying nonsense like that, it adds nothing to the discussion. The viability of escape is irrelevant, otherwise you could just as easily justify a permadeath to a red mechanic: "jUsT RuN aWaY".
if you change the system and make the disctinction between passive and agressive green, then it will be abused.
It's the other way around, if it's kept as is, it will be abused because aggressive greens have unwarranted advantages against reds that nobody else has.
again, you are just talking from the perspective of how you want to play and you dont care how the system affects other things. you just dont wanna be fked when a red comes and kills you and you dont wanna be fked when you start killing greens.
Except for all the posts where I include green's perspective. The arguments have been provided, you just fail or choose not to see them and how these nuances negatively impact the game. Because hey, a shitty system is no problem if you can just never PK and if you see a red, you can just run away... right?
This thread has ran its course. OP is on point, so far Steven hasn't led me down with his decisions, hopefully it'll be revisited after testing.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm sure.
What your list truly indicates is that the easiest multiplayer video games to create are PvP.
That's not quite the same thing as multiplayer games being fundamentally PvP.
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.
The word "grief" is to me meaningless when I see it used by players on forums. It is used for anything they don't like.
But the corruption works well as it is, putting more corruption onto the corrupt player. But I assume the map is large enough and the density of players will be low and once you vanish in woods you will not see anyone soon. Except bounty hunters. Still is unclear to me how you can clean the corruption. If there are more NPC spots than players then you can do that.
The weak part of the system is that a bounty hunter can come with a team of greens, collaborate and let the green be killed to be able to defeat the corrupt player and take more of his gear.
If this was already mentioned, I missed it.
As it is now, I feel that the Bounty Hunter mechanic should be removed from the game and leave the corruption as it is.
Alternatively the corruption to be lenient far from nodes and stronger nearby. @Dolyem Would it be ok if the corrupt player is allowed to defend against green players without getting more corruption in remote areas, far from nodes? (as far as it can be considering that the entire land is covered by them. Maybe just far from high level nodes which mean stronger civilization.)
That'd be fair if I was using my own definition of griefing as my basis. But I am using Steven's definition of griefing. So it's entirely meaningful.
And your point with greens roaming with bounty hunters is another good point as to why greens engaging fights shouldn't give more corruption.
And seeing as nodes envelop the entirety of the game where corruption is viable, I don't see what you're trying to say here?
I was trying to find some way to transition from punishing corruption close to node settlements to lenient corruption further away. But I do not see it anymore a good idea.
There are however corrupted areas. Maybe there the corrupted player could have some protection from greens, to be able to clean his corruption by killing the corrupted monsters like he was about to become. And in the process, he would do a good thing for the node too.
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.
If greens try to hunt down a red and fail, that's on them, red shouldn't be additionally punished for holding their ground (which is NOT GRIEFING for god's sake). Already works that way with BHs and purples, no reason to be different with greens that consent to PvP a red. Consensual PvP is not a crime in AoC, the name of your color should not have any say in that.
Hunting down is relative. Those greens might be within sight when their friend was killed and keep running after the corrupted player.
I don't say they come from the other side of the map. Which actually can happen with family teleportation.
But even if those are not friends but random greens, the corrupted committed a crime. A punishment must be applied. Just like in RL, you cannot say you wanted to kill just the man and his wife attacked and invoke self defense for one crime.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I was trying to find some way to transition from punishing corruption close to node settlements to lenient corruption further away. But I do not see it anymore a good idea.
There are however corrupted areas. Maybe there the corrupted player could have some protection from greens, to be able to clean his corruption by killing the corrupted monsters like he was about to become. And in the process, he would do a good thing for the node too.
Steven does not want there to be safe havens where Red players have protection from Greens.
Some of these replies makes me realize a lot of you will find out there are lines you don't cross even in the most hardcore of PvP games.
Asset wars, because it'll all come back to you don't know why someones red and if you don't mind your business you might find everything you worked for getting warred off the map within the confines of the systems in place, then you're just going to quit anyway.
Gotta see the entire picture when talking about any system in Ashes.
Comments
I meant that very graciously, mostly the community is small groups of people trying to get the game to fit what they want it to be.
It was a conversation on the discord yeah.
In Asherons Call there was an add on called Pk hunter, this score is very similar to that.
It recorded who you killed, when you killed them, TTK or fast you killed them, how many times you killed them, was pretty cool tbh.
It’s supposed to have a negative connotation to it, but it doesn’t to me. I think PvP/PK metrics are good, not bad. I think something similar would be a bonus to Ashes which I may include in my idea to expand the corruption system.
-There are plenty of PvP opportunities that don't involve Corruption, the entire Deep Sea as example.
-Corruption is a Penalty, not a Playstyle.
-Being attacked by Greens is part of the Corruption Penalty.
-The amount of Corrupt EXP Penalty will not be lowered, or else the Bounty Hunters can't intercept in time.
-If you think the Corruption Penalty is unfair, wait until you hear about being an Enemy Of The State...
My fear is that bounty hunters will be few and far inbetween, as there will be minimal PKing going on.
That'd be fair if I was using my own definition of griefing as my basis. But I am using Steven's definition of griefing. So it's entirely meaningful.
And your point with greens roaming with bounty hunters is another good point as to why greens engaging fights shouldn't give more corruption.
And seeing as nodes envelop the entirety of the game where corruption is viable, I don't see what you're trying to say here?
pve griefing is real and i have mentioned it before. but if i kill you and you come back and i have lready cleansed my corruption and i kill you again, you arent karma bombing me xD
also, if u keep coming back to give me more corruption, that isnt griefing
I didn't say those
Fundamentally, multiplayer games are PVP. PVE is inherently an addition to multiplayer games.
also, couldnt you attack your party in the first version of tabletop dnd?
You'd don't fight for a node in open sea and I'll say it again, corruption is to penalize griefing. Defending yourself isn't griefing so it shouldn't be penalized.
More loot and no Corruption.
prices in the store increase on that node and you also get a quest. @_@
If you kill a Green repeatedly in quick succession, that is griefing by Steven's definition - and it will be punished by rapidly intensified Corruption penalties.
That is not anywhere close to being true.
But, some PvPers wish it were true.
Theoretically, possible to physically attack your party.
Killing someone in your party occurred around .01%.
In 40 years of playing D&D with various groups around the country, someone killed a party member once and someone attacked a party member without killing anyone once.
Dude you need to check your quotes, I said neither of those. Drinking is bad this early in the morning bud.
(Also... these Forums don't have the best reply design.)
Very understandable
u sure?
first video game was Tennis for two, which is pvp.
first online game was maze war, a multiplayer shooter, which is pvp.
first tabletop game was some egyptian game around 5000 years ago for 2 players. again, pvp.
first sport (sports are games as well) were wrestling and boxing. and wrestling has existed for thousands of years as a form of entertainment, you know..we call that a game.
no one killed your party in dnd because you play with carebears. if you play dnd with me (and probably @Arya_Yeshe) we would most likely kill the party and take your loot, then finish the quest ourselves, then he would pvp me and the victor takes all.
What’s an innocent player when you give consent four times before playing?
they have a chance at killing the red player. or literally run before they get engaged. seeing someone red in the distance running towards you its kind of a tell. they might not even be carrying anything and wont drop anything. also, innocent is subjective.
if you change the system and make the disctinction between passive and agressive green, then it will be abused. again, you are just talking from the perspective of how you want to play and you dont care how the system affects other things. you just dont wanna be fked when a red comes and kills you and you dont wanna be fked when you start killing greens.
That's the same as saying "jUsT dOn'T pK". Please stop saying nonsense like that, it adds nothing to the discussion. The viability of escape is irrelevant, otherwise you could just as easily justify a permadeath to a red mechanic: "jUsT RuN aWaY".
It's the other way around, if it's kept as is, it will be abused because aggressive greens have unwarranted advantages against reds that nobody else has.
Except for all the posts where I include green's perspective. The arguments have been provided, you just fail or choose not to see them and how these nuances negatively impact the game. Because hey, a shitty system is no problem if you can just never PK and if you see a red, you can just run away... right?
This thread has ran its course. OP is on point, so far Steven hasn't led me down with his decisions, hopefully it'll be revisited after testing.
What your list truly indicates is that the easiest multiplayer video games to create are PvP.
That's not quite the same thing as multiplayer games being fundamentally PvP.
I was trying to find some way to transition from punishing corruption close to node settlements to lenient corruption further away. But I do not see it anymore a good idea.
There are however corrupted areas. Maybe there the corrupted player could have some protection from greens, to be able to clean his corruption by killing the corrupted monsters like he was about to become. And in the process, he would do a good thing for the node too.
Hunting down is relative. Those greens might be within sight when their friend was killed and keep running after the corrupted player.
I don't say they come from the other side of the map. Which actually can happen with family teleportation.
But even if those are not friends but random greens, the corrupted committed a crime. A punishment must be applied. Just like in RL, you cannot say you wanted to kill just the man and his wife attacked and invoke self defense for one crime.
Asset wars, because it'll all come back to you don't know why someones red and if you don't mind your business you might find everything you worked for getting warred off the map within the confines of the systems in place, then you're just going to quit anyway.
Gotta see the entire picture when talking about any system in Ashes.