A 4th player-combat-flagging-status

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 due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power
So what am I suggesting? Make a 4th player combat flagging status. Where a non-combatant who engages a corrupted doesn't give more corruption upon being killed, but also isn't flagged fully as a combatant, so someone else who isn't corrupted could still become corrupted from attacking them. Could call it vigilante status or something.
Why? Because the only ones who should grant corruption are the ones who aren't fighting back against you.

The other more simple solution is to make anyone attacking someone a combatant regardless of if the player has corruption or not, but that opens up players to being taken out by a corrupted players friends once they are flagged as combatant, hence my suggestion.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Dygz

Um. That precisely helps the game dynamic.
It’s exactly the game dynamic Steven wants.

Raven016

If Steven wants ganking then will not get enough players to maintain servers for each prime time.

Percimes

Ravicus wrote: »

even chess was about killing off your enemy.

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.

Dolyem

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.

hleV

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.

Ludullu

hleV wrote: »

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).

hleV wrote: »

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).

Ayeveegaming1

hleV wrote: »

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.

we did that in UO all the time haha

Depraved

hleV wrote: »

Okay, one more.

Depraved wrote: »

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.

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.

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

Raven016

Dolyem wrote: »

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.

Dolyem

Raven016 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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.

Solvryn

Raven016 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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.

Raven016

Dolyem wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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.

Raven016

Solvryn wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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.

Solvryn

Raven016 wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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

NiKr wrote: »

@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.

NiKr wrote: »

hleV wrote: »

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.

NiKr wrote: »

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.

Depraved wrote: »

i have already explained why.

Not in a convincing way.

Depraved wrote: »

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.

Depraved wrote: »

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.

Depraved wrote: »

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.

Depraved

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.

Dolyem

Raven016 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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

Raven016

Solvryn wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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.

Dygz

hleV wrote: »

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.

hleV wrote: »

The first green victim did have a choice other than running that didn't involve infinite corruption if you choose to live.

The Red has a choice.

hleV wrote: »

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.

You can't always get what you want.

Raven016

Dolyem wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

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..."

Child Item