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.
Separation of playerbase is not the answer. You'll split the traffic of areas with that suggestion. Variables to deter repetitive griefing transgressions while allowing for singular non-griefing PKs is how you maintain a healthy OWPvP community. Too strict or too lenient, and it won't be healthy. Corruption for defending yourself is punishment for PvP, not for griefing, your punishment is reflected in your current stat disadvantage with corruption, and the consequences for failing to get rid of your corruption upon dying. Otherwise, if you're good enough to succeed in ridding yourself of corruption from killing players who don't fight back or are too low level, you get to keep the rewards you risked it for. That being said, corruption in its griefing stages I suggested would be closer to impossible compared to lighter variables of corruption.
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.
picking your battles is part of strategy in pvp, not just ooga ooga caveman charge har har.
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.
I'd also add my reasoning to be lenient with a low amount of PKs is because those players are technically behaving. They get their couple kills, realize the players aren't going to fight back, so they move on. Griefing prevented, and a time spent reducing that corruption provides a barrier for the next time it can happen from that player. The purpose is served.
picking your battles is part of strategy in pvp, not just ooga ooga caveman charge har har.
I already asked you nicely to stop spouting general nonsense such as "pick your battles", "don't PK" and "you can just run away". We're discussing the system's nuances, not ways to avoid engaging it. Stop looking at an individual (me in this case) and what you think their preferred way of playing is. Look at the damn system. And look at it in a simple way:
- you have BH vs red (absolutely no problem with how that works),
- you have purple vs red (absolutely no problem with how that works),
- you have green vs red, where green is not fighting back (green can't halve their death penalty),
- you have green vs red, where green is on offensive (red is not griefing, yet is penalized on top of their deserved penalty).
What's the reason to pour corruption on top of corrupion and dampen stats for consensual PvP? It's the initial crime that the red has to be (and is) penalized for. Why is red not penalized for walking, cutting down a tree, but for engaging in consensual PvP? Nothing justifies that. The only real solution a player has here is to simply not engage with this system, because it's plain terrible.
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.
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: green vs red rules are weird, relatively inconsistent and unwarranted in otherwise decently designed system.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
Actually, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
What advantage in combat does a Green have over a Red that a Purple does not have?
There is no guarantee that a Red can defeat a Green and no guarantee that a Gren can defeat a Red.
If the Red doesn’t want more Corruption, the Red can refuse to fight.
Same as when the Red first killed a Green it was because the Green refused to turn Purple.
An “aggressive Green” can only be created by someone making the willful choice to become Red and reap the consequences.
How are the “aggressive Green” rules more weird than Karma rules?”
Reds are being punished for forcing Non- Combatants into non-consensual PvP.
If you don’t like the consequences of being Red, don’t become Red.
L2 players expect there will be plenty of players who won’t mind turning Red.
Of course, that will be tested in Alpha 2 and the Betas.
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.
Yes, I see on wiki that Steven said
And I think that the intent behind the corruption is that like during a rise in passion and like anger and whatever you want to make this decision and do something and you'll suffer the repercussions later.
It also doesn't help the game dynamic overall. The gathering process will be more protected than the transporting process. Those who want action and rewards will get more of it playing as teams attacking caravans than solo gankers farming greens.
For example the reward killing a green gatherer is worthless if you want to take his hunting certificates
The level of the node and the distance of the node from the drop will determine the value of the certificate. Certificates redeemed from distant economic regions via the caravan system will provide higher returns (4 to 5 times greater in some cases) than certificates collected from the same region.[16][4]
The ganking play-style was moved into the sea.
On land, caravans will be more rewarding.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Um. That precisely helps the game dynamic.
It’s exactly the game dynamic Steven wants.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
I would also love to kill bots while waiting for them to be taken care of by GMs, without risking ridiculous penalties myself. In fact once the bot is banned, the corruption should be removed from players that killed it.
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.
@hleV I feel like you're forgetting that green death penalties are the default. If a completely passive green is about to die at the hands of a red - that is literally the same thing as that green dying to a mob (yet another hint at Reds being treated as "mobs" by the game's system). And Steven doesn't want an opt-in flag system to allow people to just reduce their death penalties willy-nilly (which is also why we can't attack and flag on our mates).
What's the reason to pour corruption on top of corrupion and dampen stats for consensual PvP? It's the initial crime that the red has to be (and is) penalized for. Why is red not penalized for walking, cutting down a tree, but for engaging in consensual PvP? Nothing justifies that. The only real solution a player has here is to simply not engage with this system, because it's plain terrible.
As Dygz pointed out. It's not a "consensual" pvp. The Red doesn't want to fight back against the green because it would bring him more corruption, just as his first victim didn't want to fight back for their own reason.
It's a mirror situation that makes the Red think about what they do to their victims, in the hopes of preventing more PKing. Your choice is to either run away to lessen the pain (just as it was for the first green victim) or to fight back and create a much higher risk for yourself, because other people can kill you for free for longer (just as it would've been for that green if he flagged up).
1
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I would also love to kill bots while waiting for them to be taken care of by GMs, without risking ridiculous penalties myself. In fact once the bot is banned, the corruption should be removed from players that killed it.
picking your battles is part of strategy in pvp, not just ooga ooga caveman charge har har.
I already asked you nicely to stop spouting general nonsense such as "pick your battles", "don't PK" and "you can just run away". We're discussing the system's nuances, not ways to avoid engaging it. Stop looking at an individual (me in this case) and what you think their preferred way of playing is. Look at the damn system. And look at it in a simple way:
- you have BH vs red (absolutely no problem with how that works),
- you have purple vs red (absolutely no problem with how that works),
- you have green vs red, where green is not fighting back (green can't halve their death penalty),
- you have green vs red, where green is on offensive (red is not griefing, yet is penalized on top of their deserved penalty).
What's the reason to pour corruption on top of corrupion and dampen stats for consensual PvP? It's the initial crime that the red has to be (and is) penalized for. Why is red not penalized for walking, cutting down a tree, but for engaging in consensual PvP? Nothing justifies that. The only real solution a player has here is to simply not engage with this system, because it's plain terrible.
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.
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: green vs red rules are weird, relatively inconsistent and unwarranted in otherwise decently designed system.
i have already explained why. just go play some l2 and ull understand. i dont wanna keep repeating the same thing. even other l2 players agree x.x
the reason i say dont engage is because corruption is an undesirable state to be in. there arent any advantages. it is made like that on purpose so that players avoid it. the point of the system is so that players avoid it. so players avoiding it make the system good, not bad. and players getting fked by it for not avoiding it, makes the system good, not bad. the design is to make players avoid that state, so u only get fk if ur in that state, which makes players reconsider and not be in that state, therefore the design is working as intended
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nodes, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
@hleV I feel like you're forgetting that green death penalties are the default. If a completely passive green is about to die at the hands of a red - that is literally the same thing as that green dying to a mob (yet another hint at Reds being treated as "mobs" by the game's system). And Steven doesn't want an opt-in flag system to allow people to just reduce their death penalties willy-nilly (which is also why we can't attack and flag on our mates).
You hit your opponent once and bam, death penalties halved. Except when it's red vs green.
What's the reason to pour corruption on top of corrupion and dampen stats for consensual PvP? It's the initial crime that the red has to be (and is) penalized for. Why is red not penalized for walking, cutting down a tree, but for engaging in consensual PvP? Nothing justifies that. The only real solution a player has here is to simply not engage with this system, because it's plain terrible.
As Dygz pointed out. It's not a "consensual" pvp. The Red doesn't want to fight back against the green because it would bring him more corruption, just as his first victim didn't want to fight back for their own reason.
A green that attacks a red has consented to attack a red. Which part of this PvP is not consensual? Notice how I'm not even bringing a case for a red who doesn't fight back, because red is supposed to be hunted. The problem is with red having to bend over and have the green take him down so as not to risk additional corruption if escape is not viable, which is bad system design. The risk isn't just too high, it's nonsensical to continue being additionally penalized for one thing that you're already being penalized for.
It's a mirror situation that makes the Red think about what they do to their victims, in the hopes of preventing more PKing. Your choice is to either run away to lessen the pain (just as it was for the first green victim) or to fight back and create a much higher risk for yourself, because other people can kill you for free for longer (just as it would've been for that green if he flagged up).
The first green victim did have a choice other than running that didn't involve infinite corruption if you choose to live.
just go play some l2 and ull understand. i dont wanna keep repeating the same thing. even other l2 players agree x.x
I have played L2. You and other L2-biased people thinking that a system worked perfectly in a different game nearly 2 decades ago doesn't contribute much here. For the most part it's fine. Not the part we're discussing, though.
the reason i say dont engage is because corruption is an undesirable state to be in. there arent any advantages.
I don't know how to make this clearer. I don't disagree with you here, it's just that telling people "to not engage", "to not PK", "to just run away" does not contribute to the discussion of the corruption system's specifics.
it is made like that on purpose so that players avoid it. the point of the system is so that players avoid it. so players avoiding it make the system good, not bad. and players getting fked by it for not avoiding it, makes the system good, not bad. the design is to make players avoid that state, so u only get fk if ur in that state, which makes players reconsider and not be in that state, therefore the design is working as intended
Again, irrelevant to the very specific part of the corruption system we're discussing. I'm not asking to remove all penalties for corruption, I want it to make sense. Whatever extra risk you think is imposed by extra corruption for killing (aggressive) greens can be made up by cranking other sliders up.
if u played l2 then u should know the stat dampening is a good thing.
also, if you change the system so that reds can fight back vs aggressive greens without getting more corruption or without their stats lowered, then the system becomes more desirable to be in, which is the complete opposite direction and intent of the system.
i agree that it might not be fair that ur stats get dampened, but this is actually fair in many situations other than im a solo player who gets attacked by greens my own level while im red. no matter what you do, someone will always get the short end of the stick. in this case, im fine with it being the solo pk player since the game is designed around group play and it also prevents far worse things.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A green that attacks a red has consented to attack a red. Which part of this PvP is not consensual? Notice how I'm not even bringing a case for a red who doesn't fight back, because red is supposed to be hunted. The problem is with red having to bend over and have the green take him down so as not to risk additional corruption if escape is not viable, which is bad system design. The risk isn't just too high, it's nonsensical to continue being additionally penalized for one thing that you're already being penalized for.
Not from the perspective of PvP flagging because Reds are treated as mobs; not players.
The Red already forced a Green to bend over, so... turnabout is fair play. That's "Karma" for you.
Payback's a bitch.
Again, irrelevant to the very specific part of the corruption system we're discussing. I'm not asking to remove all penalties for corruption, I want it to make sense. Whatever extra risk you think is imposed by extra corruption for killing (aggressive) greens can be made up by cranking other sliders up.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from
I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.
Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."
Comments
so the first games were not player vs player?
Separation of playerbase is not the answer. You'll split the traffic of areas with that suggestion. Variables to deter repetitive griefing transgressions while allowing for singular non-griefing PKs is how you maintain a healthy OWPvP community. Too strict or too lenient, and it won't be healthy. Corruption for defending yourself is punishment for PvP, not for griefing, your punishment is reflected in your current stat disadvantage with corruption, and the consequences for failing to get rid of your corruption upon dying. Otherwise, if you're good enough to succeed in ridding yourself of corruption from killing players who don't fight back or are too low level, you get to keep the rewards you risked it for. That being said, corruption in its griefing stages I suggested would be closer to impossible compared to lighter variables of corruption.
picking your battles is part of strategy in pvp, not just ooga ooga caveman charge har har.
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.
I already asked you nicely to stop spouting general nonsense such as "pick your battles", "don't PK" and "you can just run away". We're discussing the system's nuances, not ways to avoid engaging it. Stop looking at an individual (me in this case) and what you think their preferred way of playing is. Look at the damn system. And look at it in a simple way:
- you have BH vs red (absolutely no problem with how that works),
- you have purple vs red (absolutely no problem with how that works),
- you have green vs red, where green is not fighting back (green can't halve their death penalty),
- you have green vs red, where green is on offensive (red is not griefing, yet is penalized on top of their deserved penalty).
What's the reason to pour corruption on top of corrupion and dampen stats for consensual PvP? It's the initial crime that the red has to be (and is) penalized for. Why is red not penalized for walking, cutting down a tree, but for engaging in consensual PvP? Nothing justifies that. The only real solution a player has here is to simply not engage with this system, because it's plain terrible.
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: green vs red rules are weird, relatively inconsistent and unwarranted in otherwise decently designed system.
I’ve answered that question already.
What advantage in combat does a Green have over a Red that a Purple does not have?
There is no guarantee that a Red can defeat a Green and no guarantee that a Gren can defeat a Red.
If the Red doesn’t want more Corruption, the Red can refuse to fight.
Same as when the Red first killed a Green it was because the Green refused to turn Purple.
An “aggressive Green” can only be created by someone making the willful choice to become Red and reap the consequences.
How are the “aggressive Green” rules more weird than Karma rules?”
Reds are being punished for forcing Non- Combatants into non-consensual PvP.
If you don’t like the consequences of being Red, don’t become Red.
L2 players expect there will be plenty of players who won’t mind turning Red.
Of course, that will be tested in Alpha 2 and the Betas.
Yes, I see on wiki that Steven said
And I think that the intent behind the corruption is that like during a rise in passion and like anger and whatever you want to make this decision and do something and you'll suffer the repercussions later.
It also doesn't help the game dynamic overall. The gathering process will be more protected than the transporting process. Those who want action and rewards will get more of it playing as teams attacking caravans than solo gankers farming greens.
For example the reward killing a green gatherer is worthless if you want to take his hunting certificates
The level of the node and the distance of the node from the drop will determine the value of the certificate. Certificates redeemed from distant economic regions via the caravan system will provide higher returns (4 to 5 times greater in some cases) than certificates collected from the same region.[16][4]
The ganking play-style was moved into the sea.
On land, caravans will be more rewarding.
It’s exactly the game dynamic Steven wants.
I thought it was about "capturing" the other king, hence why it's bad chess etiquette to knock down the opponent's king on a checkmate.
Oh well.
As Dygz pointed out. It's not a "consensual" pvp. The Red doesn't want to fight back against the green because it would bring him more corruption, just as his first victim didn't want to fight back for their own reason.
It's a mirror situation that makes the Red think about what they do to their victims, in the hopes of preventing more PKing. Your choice is to either run away to lessen the pain (just as it was for the first green victim) or to fight back and create a much higher risk for yourself, because other people can kill you for free for longer (just as it would've been for that green if he flagged up).
we did that in UO all the time haha
i have already explained why. just go play some l2 and ull understand. i dont wanna keep repeating the same thing. even other l2 players agree x.x
the reason i say dont engage is because corruption is an undesirable state to be in. there arent any advantages. it is made like that on purpose so that players avoid it. the point of the system is so that players avoid it. so players avoiding it make the system good, not bad. and players getting fked by it for not avoiding it, makes the system good, not bad. the design is to make players avoid that state, so u only get fk if ur in that state, which makes players reconsider and not be in that state, therefore the design is working as intended
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nodes, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
A green that attacks a red has consented to attack a red. Which part of this PvP is not consensual? Notice how I'm not even bringing a case for a red who doesn't fight back, because red is supposed to be hunted. The problem is with red having to bend over and have the green take him down so as not to risk additional corruption if escape is not viable, which is bad system design. The risk isn't just too high, it's nonsensical to continue being additionally penalized for one thing that you're already being penalized for.
The first green victim did have a choice other than running that didn't involve infinite corruption if you choose to live.
Not in a convincing way.
I have played L2. You and other L2-biased people thinking that a system worked perfectly in a different game nearly 2 decades ago doesn't contribute much here. For the most part it's fine. Not the part we're discussing, though.
I don't know how to make this clearer. I don't disagree with you here, it's just that telling people "to not engage", "to not PK", "to just run away" does not contribute to the discussion of the corruption system's specifics.
Again, irrelevant to the very specific part of the corruption system we're discussing. I'm not asking to remove all penalties for corruption, I want it to make sense. Whatever extra risk you think is imposed by extra corruption for killing (aggressive) greens can be made up by cranking other sliders up.
also, if you change the system so that reds can fight back vs aggressive greens without getting more corruption or without their stats lowered, then the system becomes more desirable to be in, which is the complete opposite direction and intent of the system.
i agree that it might not be fair that ur stats get dampened, but this is actually fair in many situations other than im a solo player who gets attacked by greens my own level while im red. no matter what you do, someone will always get the short end of the stick. in this case, im fine with it being the solo pk player since the game is designed around group play and it also prevents far worse things.
And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The Red already forced a Green to bend over, so... turnabout is fair play. That's "Karma" for you.
Payback's a bitch.
The Red has a choice.
You can't always get what you want.
I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.
Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."