NiKr wrote: » hleV wrote: » Okay, let's try again: What did an INNOCENT green PvEer do to deserve not being able to flag purple to halve their death penalty against a red? The risks and rewards of green vs red specifically are plain stupid, in no way improve the corruption system, only overcomplicate and mess it up. "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.
hleV wrote: » Okay, let's try again: What did an INNOCENT green PvEer do to deserve not being able to flag purple to halve their death penalty against a red? The risks and rewards of green vs red specifically are plain stupid, in no way improve the corruption system, only overcomplicate and mess it up.
Depraved wrote: » 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...
Raven016 wrote: » 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.
hleV wrote: » NiKr wrote: » hleV wrote: » Okay, let's try again: What did an INNOCENT green PvEer do to deserve not being able to flag purple to halve their death penalty against a red? The risks and rewards of green vs red specifically are plain stupid, in no way improve the corruption system, only overcomplicate and mess it up. "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. Depraved wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » they have a chance at killing the red player.
Depraved wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » if you change the system and make the disctinction between passive and agressive green, then it will be abused.
Depraved wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » u sure?
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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?
Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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.)
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.
hleV wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » 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.
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » u sure? 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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. 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.
hleV wrote: » Depraved wrote: » they have a chance at killing the red player. 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. Depraved wrote: » 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". Depraved wrote: » 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. Depraved wrote: » 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.
Depraved wrote: » picking your battles is part of strategy in pvp, not just ooga ooga caveman charge har har.
Depraved wrote: » what you are describing as a problem, i dont see it as a problem. you could say its different opinions, but i know the abuses that can be done if you didnt have this system.
Depraved wrote: » so the first games were not player vs player?
hleV wrote: » You don't know what you're talking about. The way it's currently set out to be, it's gonna be Christmas for green PvPers when they come across a red, compared to how it works for purple/BH vs red. Now I don't know if it's going to be a common/meta thing, and I'm not here to discuss unknown variables, I'm here taking things at face value and the conclusion is clear as a day: aggressive green vs red rules are weird, relatively inconsistent and unwarranted in otherwise decently designed system.
Dygz wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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.
