JamesSunderland wrote: » Even tho a 4th player combat flagging status could work as an extra tool for balancing the corruption system, i don't currently see a need for it, specially before properly even testing it's A2 iteration. Even tho Ashes' corruption is currently harsher than Lineage 2's karma, L2 didn't had chances to drop mats from non-combatants/combatants nor the benefit of losing less xp/mats that combatant's death provides. While i believe PKing will probably be reasonably less prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2, i do believe Combatant-on-combatant violence will be quite more prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2 (on land, not even considering the Lawless Open Seas).
Dolyem wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Even tho a 4th player combat flagging status could work as an extra tool for balancing the corruption system, i don't currently see a need for it, specially before properly even testing it's A2 iteration. Even tho Ashes' corruption is currently harsher than Lineage 2's karma, L2 didn't had chances to drop mats from non-combatants/combatants nor the benefit of losing less xp/mats that combatant's death provides. While i believe PKing will probably be reasonably less prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2, i do believe Combatant-on-combatant violence will be quite more prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2 (on land, not even considering the Lawless Open Seas). It should definitely get tested, but I will always point out ways I plan to break things before I play if it speeds up the devs work and maintains intent on gameplay. It may very well not be what Intrepid wants, or it could very well have given Steven an "oh shit he's right" moment. We likely won't know, but if I see something I don't think lines up with what Steven has been pitching, I'm happy to point it out and debate it. Edit: I still like to think I was responsible for Open Sea PvP happening
JamesSunderland wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » Even tho a 4th player combat flagging status could work as an extra tool for balancing the corruption system, i don't currently see a need for it, specially before properly even testing it's A2 iteration. Even tho Ashes' corruption is currently harsher than Lineage 2's karma, L2 didn't had chances to drop mats from non-combatants/combatants nor the benefit of losing less xp/mats that combatant's death provides. While i believe PKing will probably be reasonably less prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2, i do believe Combatant-on-combatant violence will be quite more prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2 (on land, not even considering the Lawless Open Seas). It should definitely get tested, but I will always point out ways I plan to break things before I play if it speeds up the devs work and maintains intent on gameplay. It may very well not be what Intrepid wants, or it could very well have given Steven an "oh shit he's right" moment. We likely won't know, but if I see something I don't think lines up with what Steven has been pitching, I'm happy to point it out and debate it. Edit: I still like to think I was responsible for Open Sea PvP happening I get your idea, it's a reasonable mindset and might end up being something more fuctiontional and desirable for Ashes than it would be in L2 which is the main point of reference. As for the Lawless Open Seas, i expected it way before it was announced for Ashes due to ArcheAge's Open Seas and its relation to the naval combat inspiration for Ashes.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken. The 2nd paragraph But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki? I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics. Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green. And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt. Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby. Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away. Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed. As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added. To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier. The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants. If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore. It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain. Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking. I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay. And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times. And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups. I have difficulties to estimate how many people accept that ganking is not griefing. I searched the forum for 'ganking' and 2nd link I see was posted by @Vaknar himselfhttps://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/53243/wwyd-ganking-a-player/p1 The comments are interesting unknownsystemerror wrote: » Well done. 4 plus years of Steven telling the community that Ashes won't be a gankbox to be undone by one tweet. Dolyem wrote: » I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen. Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game. And if he wants it to be popular or niche. I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken. The 2nd paragraph But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki? I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics. Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green. And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt. Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby. Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away. Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed. As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added. To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier. The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants. If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore. It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain. Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking. I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay. And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times. And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups. I have difficulties to estimate how many people accept that ganking is not griefing. I searched the forum for 'ganking' and 2nd link I see was posted by @Vaknar himselfhttps://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/53243/wwyd-ganking-a-player/p1 The comments are interesting unknownsystemerror wrote: » Well done. 4 plus years of Steven telling the community that Ashes won't be a gankbox to be undone by one tweet. Dolyem wrote: » I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen. Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game. And if he wants it to be popular or niche.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken. The 2nd paragraph But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki? I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics. Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green. And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt. Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby. Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away. Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed. As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added. To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier. The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants. If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore. It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain. Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking. I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay. And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times. And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken. The 2nd paragraph But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki? I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics. Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green. And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt. Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby. Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away. Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed. As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added. To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier. The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants. If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore. It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain. Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Raven016 wrote: » .
unknownsystemerror wrote: » Well done. 4 plus years of Steven telling the community that Ashes won't be a gankbox to be undone by one tweet.
Dolyem wrote: »
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken. The 2nd paragraph But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki? I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics. Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green. And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt. Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby. Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away. Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed. As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added. To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier. The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants. If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore. It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain. Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking. I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay. And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times. And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups. I have difficulties to estimate how many people accept that ganking is not griefing. I searched the forum for 'ganking' and 2nd link I see was posted by @Vaknar himselfhttps://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/53243/wwyd-ganking-a-player/p1 The comments are interesting unknownsystemerror wrote: » Well done. 4 plus years of Steven telling the community that Ashes won't be a gankbox to be undone by one tweet. Dolyem wrote: » I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen. Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game. And if he wants it to be popular or niche. I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking. You mean you see a corrupt player getting more corruption when is forced to kill a green in self defense as griefing? Independent of the question above, I have one more idea. Maybe was mentioned and I missed it. I see on wiki: Non-combatants entering an open world battleground (PvP event) are automatically flagged as combatants and remain flagged for a period of time after leaving that battleground.[10] T = period of time after leaving that battleground Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would get no more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after T elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away? Because after T elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them. I assume T is 5 or more minutes.
hleV wrote: » "Extra corruption for killing PvP-consented greens after having gained corruption is part of the punishment" is nothing more than a biased PvEer perspective and a desire to never see any PKing, which is not what Steven wants?
hleV wrote: » PKing can be easily reduced by increasing the usual penalty, without completely messing with the people who ever dared PKing someone.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken. The 2nd paragraph But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki? I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics. Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green. And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt. Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby. Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away. Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed. As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added. To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier. The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants. If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore. It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain. Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking. I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay. And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times. And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups. I have difficulties to estimate how many people accept that ganking is not griefing. I searched the forum for 'ganking' and 2nd link I see was posted by @Vaknar himselfhttps://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/53243/wwyd-ganking-a-player/p1 The comments are interesting unknownsystemerror wrote: » Well done. 4 plus years of Steven telling the community that Ashes won't be a gankbox to be undone by one tweet. Dolyem wrote: » I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen. Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game. And if he wants it to be popular or niche. I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking. You mean you see a corrupt player getting more corruption when is forced to kill a green in self defense as griefing? Independent of the question above, I have one more idea. Maybe was mentioned and I missed it. I see on wiki: Non-combatants entering an open world battleground (PvP event) are automatically flagged as combatants and remain flagged for a period of time after leaving that battleground.[10] T = period of time after leaving that battleground Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would get no more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after T elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away? Because after T elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them. I assume T is 5 or more minutes. I see defending oneself by fighting back regardless of ones status as a form of gameplay that shouldn't be punished in any way. And I guess that could work if I'm reading that correctly? You'd still need a way to differentiate those greens from greens that aren't attacking at all. I think it'd be far simpler to just apply the 4th flagging status and pretty much have the same result. Unless you really think the 5 minute timer until it is allowed is necessary?
Raven016 wrote: » What does mean the question mark at the end of your statement?
Raven016 wrote: » PvEers will not play this game.
Raven016 wrote: » Steven explains that the reason is a "fun cat-and-mouse" game and that the the corrupted player's main way to get rid of of corruption is through death. He wants to gradually increase the chance of the corrupt player to die, if he doesn't run away:
Raven016 wrote: » hleV wrote: » PKing can be easily reduced by increasing the usual penalty, without completely messing with the people who ever dared PKing someone. Then it would become a rigid rule, easily leading to opt-in PvP system. I prefer gradual transitions from a state to another. But Steven made the rules.
Raven016 wrote: » Steven explains that the reason is a "fun cat-and-mouse" game and that the the corrupted player's main way to get rid of of corruption is through death. He wants to gradually increase the chance of the corrupt player to die, if he doesn't run away: Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties. Where this changes is when a Combatant kills a Non-Combatant. In this case, the Combatant is Corrupt, and acquires a Corruption Score (which is accrued based on a number of different parameters, including the level differential of their freshly slain victim). This Corruption Score can be worked off with effort through a few mechanics, but the primary means of getting rid of it is through death. While a player is marked as Corrupt, they may be attacked by both Combatants and Non-Combatants. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player, the non-combatant will not flag as a combatant. We also have some other ideas that we haven’t formalized yet that will allow players to participate in what we feel could be a fun cat-and-mouse part of the game. As an example, the location of these corrupt players will be displayed on the map, if you have the Bounty Hunter title, The quote is from 2017 but the rules were not changes over these 7 years. hleV wrote: » PKing can be easily reduced by increasing the usual penalty, without completely messing with the people who ever dared PKing someone. Then it would become a rigid rule, easily leading to opt-in PvP system. I prefer gradual transitions from a state to another. But Steven made the rules.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken. The 2nd paragraph But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki? I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics. Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green. And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt. Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby. Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away. Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed. As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added. To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier. The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants. If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore. It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain. Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking. I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay. And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times. And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups. I have difficulties to estimate how many people accept that ganking is not griefing. I searched the forum for 'ganking' and 2nd link I see was posted by @Vaknar himselfhttps://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/53243/wwyd-ganking-a-player/p1 The comments are interesting unknownsystemerror wrote: » Well done. 4 plus years of Steven telling the community that Ashes won't be a gankbox to be undone by one tweet. Dolyem wrote: » I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen. Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game. And if he wants it to be popular or niche. I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking. You mean you see a corrupt player getting more corruption when is forced to kill a green in self defense as griefing? Independent of the question above, I have one more idea. Maybe was mentioned and I missed it. I see on wiki: Non-combatants entering an open world battleground (PvP event) are automatically flagged as combatants and remain flagged for a period of time after leaving that battleground.[10] T = period of time after leaving that battleground Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would get no more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after T elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away? Because after T elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them. I assume T is 5 or more minutes. I see defending oneself by fighting back regardless of ones status as a form of gameplay that shouldn't be punished in any way. And I guess that could work if I'm reading that correctly? You'd still need a way to differentiate those greens from greens that aren't attacking at all. I think it'd be far simpler to just apply the 4th flagging status and pretty much have the same result. Unless you really think the 5 minute timer until it is allowed is necessary? Of course to differentiate the green who hunt and attacks first from another who is attacked, a flag is needed. The discussion from my PoV is about - why the rules are as they are - what Steven wanted - if he made a mistake or not - what impact onto the general game-play will be I wouldn't mind a different game-play but if I suspect that Steven wants the game described as it is on wiki, then I will point out how the change would influence the game. The reason why I am not attached to a certain game-play style is that Steven said "anything is subject to change". I bought the game taking into account changes too
Raven016 wrote: » But back to the topic. It could be that 5 minutes is a bit long but time to kill is long too. I do not know why Steven decided that "period of time after leaving that battleground". But I feel the same reasons can be applied here too without knowing for sure, and even other reasons. The wiki states The penalties are intended to be severe enough to deter any type of spawn camping.[70] So I think the corrupt players should be encouraged to leave the area. The area is easy to know, basically being defined by the coordinates where the player was killed. Green players located close enough to that spot could be considered as involved into the event (witnesses) and should have the right to chase the corrupt player to increase his corruption. Players outside of that area, I would consider similar to Bounty Hunters but without the ability to see on the map where the corrupt player is. Because the Bounty Hunters need to have an advantage over such green players. 5 minutes after the kill occurred, I would remove the additional penalties if the corrupt defends itself. It could be that the corrupt attacked all greens fighting NPCs and reduced their health, killed one by mistake, then it has to run. The greens may or may not follow. After 5 minutes, one of those greens or any other green could be considered an attacker, similar to a BH.
Dolyem wrote: » And Spawn Camping is an act of griefing as I have said many times. If your entire reason of gaining corruption in the first place was to claim an area(not griefing), that gets rid of that very viable PvP interaction.
Dolyem wrote: » Continuing to kill a player who isn't fighting back would inevitably provide a large amount of corruption with the changes I have suggested, giving the intended results. However, should that non-combatant engage after only being killed a couple of times, the fight is mostly as intended for a legitimate PvP encounter, barring the chance the non-combatant would have normally fought back but instead wants to get 4x loot and a stat advantage. But it is entirely feasible for that non-combatant to not engage at all and give more corruption if the attacking player chooses to continue killing that player and pass the threshold from PvP into griefing, significantly hindering themselves further. And I honestly don't see any benefit for overall PvP if anyone is punished for defending against an attack. My suggestion simply protects non-combatants from combatants who would possibly use corrupted players as bait, while still allowing corrupted players to actually defend themselves when someone else is seeking out PvP. I don't see how this is bad in any circumstance when everyone involved in the situation is actively choosing to PvP at this point.
hleV wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » PvEers will not play this game. PvEers, especially PvE griefers, will have a field day in AoC if the corruption system remains as is.
hleV wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » hleV wrote: » PKing can be easily reduced by increasing the usual penalty, without completely messing with the people who ever dared PKing someone. Then it would become a rigid rule, easily leading to opt-in PvP system. I prefer gradual transitions from a state to another. But Steven made the rules. What?
Raven016 wrote: » I mean a harsh corruption would be like a flag in option menu where you set yourself as willing to PvP or not.
Dolyem wrote: » I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking.
NiKr wrote: » This would only apply to solo players outside of dangerous pve locations, which would most likely not even have any real pvp (outside of wars of course). Pretty much any dungeon location will most likely kill you if you're below a certain threshold of hp, so parties and solo players (if there are solo dungeons) will have to fight back immediately or even be the first ones to attack (just as it was somewhat often done in L2), because it'd be easier to know for sure that you either win or lose, rather than risk fighting hard npcs at low hp and then waste time for sure.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking. Repeated ganking of the same target in quick succession is griefing. Ganking is punished by Corruption on the Mainland. And the penalties increase as the PK (gank) score rises.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Continuing to kill a player who isn't fighting back would inevitably provide a large amount of corruption with the changes I have suggested, giving the intended results. However, should that non-combatant engage after only being killed a couple of times, the fight is mostly as intended for a legitimate PvP encounter, barring the chance the non-combatant would have normally fought back but instead wants to get 4x loot and a stat advantage. But it is entirely feasible for that non-combatant to not engage at all and give more corruption if the attacking player chooses to continue killing that player and pass the threshold from PvP into griefing, significantly hindering themselves further. And I honestly don't see any benefit for overall PvP if anyone is punished for defending against an attack. My suggestion simply protects non-combatants from combatants who would possibly use corrupted players as bait, while still allowing corrupted players to actually defend themselves when someone else is seeking out PvP. I don't see how this is bad in any circumstance when everyone involved in the situation is actively choosing to PvP at this point. I do not understand this case: My suggestion simply protects non-combatants from combatants who would possibly use corrupted players as bait
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » And Spawn Camping is an act of griefing as I have said many times. If your entire reason of gaining corruption in the first place was to claim an area(not griefing), that gets rid of that very viable PvP interaction. Why would? I mean there is a difference between - going to the spawn point and killing a player - reducing player's health to let the NPC kill him The 2nd case was explicitly mentioned on wiki. Probably is more annoying than the 1st method but it can happen if players refuse to fight with the attacker. Only if the attacker hits to often or too much, it becomes corrupt. Then I consider that the greens who remained at the spawn entitled to be more upset and have an advantage to defend the spawn point. But depends how many are on both sides and if they damaged all greens or not. Can happen that greens will still be unable to be a threat but also unable to stay arround and farm efficiently.
