Depraved wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » 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..."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
hleV wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. I'm giving up on you, sorry It's getting as bad as Dygz's trolling. You're only generalizing, rather than discussing the very specific, small part of the corruption system this topic is about. "stat dampening is a good thing"? Where did I ever say that stat dampening as a whole is bad? If you're actually talking about the specific scenario the topic is about, then you should make it look so, because this isn't about entirely removing stat dampening, extra corruption for continuously murdering greens, etc. So I'll just finish with this, in a pretty general way, too, specifics having been laid out numerous times in previous posts: Stat dampening for red is fine, but not in all of the cases it currently applies to. Red state is never desirable to be in, but certain penalties are just badly designed. We don't know how bad it'll get, maybe escape is very viable so nobody really gets affected by these issues, but I'd rather they patch them up before we have to find out in the live game.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
hleV wrote: » You hit your opponent once and bam, death penalties halved. Except when it's red vs green.
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.
hleV wrote: » The first green victim did have a choice other than running that didn't involve infinite corruption if you choose to live.
Raven016 wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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.
Dolyem wrote: » If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system. well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system. well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system. well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD
Depraved wrote: » oh. well i guess they will have to make fresh characters too and just kill you. ow war between 200 vs 200 lvl 1 xDDD
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system. well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD Also, if I'm powerless to stop you, it's griefing
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system. well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD Also, if I'm powerless to stop you, it's griefing its not. and you can stop me with another lvl 1XDD
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » 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..." If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system. well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD Also, if I'm powerless to stop you, it's griefing its not. and you can stop me with another lvl 1XDD Corruption says otherwise. I am punished every time I attempt to stop you.
Dolyem wrote: » If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacre enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
Dolyem wrote: » Also as the gatherer, I can have a max or mid level unaffiliated character and achieve the same goal. No corruption on my part.
