Dygz wrote: » 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. According to Ashes rules, that is not griefing. And... PvP can be used to limit that behavior.
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.
Dygz wrote: » You could try it. It won't work very well. You would be playing as intended.
Depraved wrote: » 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. but u can cleanse it and kill me again. killing a lvl 1 with a lvl 1 is not the same as killing a lvl 1 with a lvl 50. also if u as a lvl 1 its no biggie
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.
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: » 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: » 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
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
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.
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
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.
Dygz wrote: » You can be sure - means nothing until we test it.
Okeydoke wrote: » I know what you're talking about Dolyem. My confidence isn't as high as it used to be, but I still have high confidence that Steven won't let his game and the systems within it become a meme. When the time comes I intend to vigorously test and vigorously debate. For now I'm mostly just chillin. But I do know what you're talking about with a lot of things said in this thread.
Depraved wrote: » 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. ill attack you with a lower level then and if you retaliate you will get purple, ill log into my main after u kill my lowbie and finish u off ;3
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.
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. ill attack you with a lower level then and if you retaliate you will get purple, ill log into my main after u kill my lowbie and finish u off ;3 thats the thing though, I would never retaliate unless you were corrupt
Depraved wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. ill attack you with a lower level then and if you retaliate you will get purple, ill log into my main after u kill my lowbie and finish u off ;3 thats the thing though, I would never retaliate unless you were corrupt also, there is a factor you arent considering, and i wasnt too but i just had an aha! moment. if you are a level one, you might not be fighting level one nodes in my node, and the monsters will kill you. i dont even have to do it myself ahha. i could also just mob drop you :P
Depraved wrote: » no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too. unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about
Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too. unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment
Raven016 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. A level 1 will not be very efficient and will also die killed by mobs. You mentioned before the possibility to bring NPCs and let them attack.the greens. You can do that.
Dolyem wrote: » 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. The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
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: » Raven016 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. A level 1 will not be very efficient and will also die killed by mobs. You mentioned before the possibility to bring NPCs and let them attack.the greens. You can do that. Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too. unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment Corruption or not, there is zero negative to griefing as a gatherer.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 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. A level 1 will not be very efficient and will also die killed by mobs. You mentioned before the possibility to bring NPCs and let them attack.the greens. You can do that. Dolyem wrote: » Depraved wrote: » no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too. unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment Corruption or not, there is zero negative to griefing as a gatherer. You waste your time. A high level would help and have a bigger impact destroying caravans (river) instead on trying to stop the gathers (rain). Who will collect resources for your node in the sea, if not your high level warior?
