Veeshan wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Otr wrote: » The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path. The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player. If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away. There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not. Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk. You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players. If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple. Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens. It doesn't matter when the player turned red. They should know not to approach settlements until they've worked off that corruption. And players coming to avenge their PK'd group mate is a risk you know every time you start combat, that you chose to go red doesn't change that the base play pattern is 'people come back for revenge'. Reds don't need to be safeguarded, you need to weigh the risk first, not complain about the consequences after you already accepted to go red. cant work off the red if green players can just throw themself at you leaving u the option of just dieing, killing them and getting more curruption or forcing them to run away potentialy dieing in the process. its a loose loose situation for the red player and no matter the outcome a win win for the green player since u can just run back and locate them again and go again and now there a bigger reward potential since there deeper in corruption potentialy causing more equipment to drop from them
Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Otr wrote: » The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path. The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player. If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away. There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not. Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk. You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players. If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple. Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens. It doesn't matter when the player turned red. They should know not to approach settlements until they've worked off that corruption. And players coming to avenge their PK'd group mate is a risk you know every time you start combat, that you chose to go red doesn't change that the base play pattern is 'people come back for revenge'. Reds don't need to be safeguarded, you need to weigh the risk first, not complain about the consequences after you already accepted to go red.
Otr wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Otr wrote: » The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path. The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player. If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away. There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not. Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk. You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players. If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple. Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens.
Pendragxn wrote: » Otr wrote: » The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path. The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player. If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away. There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not. Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk.
Otr wrote: » The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path. The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player. If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away. There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not.
Pendragxn wrote: » I see BH’s as more of a PvP progression system outside of lawless zones kind of like the PvP Progression or Battle Pass system in New World where you get XP based on PvP contribution. The thing that needs to be looked at is how is the BH system different to a standard PvP progression system assuming they’ll have a separate system for that too. The system is there to stop reds carelessly attacking greens and griefing them without any consequences. The BH’s counter the hostile reds who would harass the green or average players. Anyways a true PvPer would just do wars, sieges or go to lawless zones there’s no fun in flagging red to bully greens. Again this is separate from the caravan system or PvX events in the open world as you’re initiating those plus know the risks. We don’t need to protect the reds! Flagging red or becoming corrupted is probably just a good way to practice ganking but comes with consequence, however gankers will group up so it won’t be just one hostile red you’re facing if the game allows it there will be a party of them.
koltovince wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I see BH’s as more of a PvP progression system outside of lawless zones kind of like the PvP Progression or Battle Pass system in New World where you get XP based on PvP contribution. The thing that needs to be looked at is how is the BH system different to a standard PvP progression system assuming they’ll have a separate system for that too. The system is there to stop reds carelessly attacking greens and griefing them without any consequences. The BH’s counter the hostile reds who would harass the green or average players. Anyways a true PvPer would just do wars, sieges or go to lawless zones there’s no fun in flagging red to bully greens. Again this is separate from the caravan system or PvX events in the open world as you’re initiating those plus know the risks. We don’t need to protect the reds! Flagging red or becoming corrupted is probably just a good way to practice ganking but comes with consequence, however gankers will group up so it won’t be just one hostile red you’re facing if the game allows it there will be a party of them. The thing is the BH system is one of the key offerings of going a military node where economy nodes get auction houses, Science gets teleports, and Divine gets a vast open world dungeon. The progression of a bounty hunter needs to be a bit more meaningful than "you can see a red within 50 yards on the map" to "you can see red players within 150 yards on the map". I agree with the bounty hunter being a deterent, but they should be more than just that if they one of the key features of a military node.
Caeryl wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Otr wrote: » The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path. The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player. If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away. There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not. Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk. You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players. If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple. Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens. It doesn't matter when the player turned red. They should know not to approach settlements until they've worked off that corruption. And players coming to avenge their PK'd group mate is a risk you know every time you start combat, that you chose to go red doesn't change that the base play pattern is 'people come back for revenge'. Reds don't need to be safeguarded, you need to weigh the risk first, not complain about the consequences after you already accepted to go red. cant work off the red if green players can just throw themself at you leaving u the option of just dieing, killing them and getting more curruption or forcing them to run away potentialy dieing in the process. its a loose loose situation for the red player and no matter the outcome a win win for the green player since u can just run back and locate them again and go again and now there a bigger reward potential since there deeper in corruption potentialy causing more equipment to drop from them Those are all consequences you know in advance, and something you should be weighing in to your decision making before you attack a green. If they don't think it's worth defending enough to flag up, and you don't think it's worth the consequences, why did you choose to go red in the first place?
Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Otr wrote: » The green players of a military node attacking a red, should automatically become Bounty Hunters and get progression on that path. The other players, even if they were bounty hunters before, if they are no longer military citizens, should become purple when attacking first, but only if a certain time passed since the red player was in combat with a regular non-BH green player. If the red player killed recently a non BH green, other green players should be able to chase the red away. There should be no visual indicator if a red player can be safely attacked by regular green players or not. Doesn’t there need to be an indicator if a red player can be attacked as they’re already flagged red which is the indicator. I don’t see the advantage for the green to not know that another player is hostile. If you flag red it should be that you’re willing to attack others and be attacked that’s the risk. You don't know when a red became red. And they are supposed to be hunted by bounty hunters rather than green players. If the red was running from players and avoiding them for some time, a random green attacking it should become purple. Greens should have the advantage to remain green as attackers, only if the red killed a green in their vicinity very recently. Or if they are military node citizens. It doesn't matter when the player turned red. They should know not to approach settlements until they've worked off that corruption. And players coming to avenge their PK'd group mate is a risk you know every time you start combat, that you chose to go red doesn't change that the base play pattern is 'people come back for revenge'. Reds don't need to be safeguarded, you need to weigh the risk first, not complain about the consequences after you already accepted to go red. cant work off the red if green players can just throw themself at you leaving u the option of just dieing, killing them and getting more curruption or forcing them to run away potentialy dieing in the process. its a loose loose situation for the red player and no matter the outcome a win win for the green player since u can just run back and locate them again and go again and now there a bigger reward potential since there deeper in corruption potentialy causing more equipment to drop from them Those are all consequences you know in advance, and something you should be weighing in to your decision making before you attack a green. If they don't think it's worth defending enough to flag up, and you don't think it's worth the consequences, why did you choose to go red in the first place? He thought the green was bluffing and will flag up right before dying to reduce the losses.
George_Black wrote: » Go play Cyrodiil.
Caeryl wrote: » So what? They made a mistake, took a gamble they didn't need to take, and they now have consequences for their choices. That's reasonable. Decide before you attack if it's worth going red. Playing mind games with yourself isn't gonna do you any good. If you want their stuff, commit to that PK. If you don't know they've got something worth taking, don't commit to the PK.
Taleof2Cities wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » So what? They made a mistake, took a gamble they didn't need to take, and they now have consequences for their choices. That's reasonable. Decide before you attack if it's worth going red. Playing mind games with yourself isn't gonna do you any good. If you want their stuff, commit to that PK. If you don't know they've got something worth taking, don't commit to the PK. Are you that fiercely against PKs, Caeryl? I like the current corruption setup too ... but I'd hate to see white knighting of the current system at the risk of not being inclusive of other player feedback. In Ashes of Creation, there will definitely be times where a PK will be worth it. As well as times where a green will fight back against a red and lose.
What this does is loosen up the restrictions on red players a bit and discourages greens from turning around to kill reds just because a swarm of other players rolled by.
Otr wrote: » He thought the green was bluffing and will flag up right before dying to reduce the losses.
Ludullu wrote: » I suggested it before, but I feel like mobs being able to remove their corruption by killing other mobs (through mob faction fights or something similar) would go a long way in equating PKers to mobs.
ShivaFang wrote: » Otr wrote: » He thought the green was bluffing and will flag up right before dying to reduce the losses. Pff nope. If I'm not fighting back instantly then I want you to suffer corruption and everything that comes with it. There's no mind games at all in this interaction. In most cases the corruption penalties for you are way worse than whatever percent of mats I would lose while green comparaed to while purple. I'd only fight back if I think I can win (and it's worth my effort) - not to save some percent of mats. Otherwise I'm happy to let you eat the corruption.
ShivaFang wrote: » Corrupted players are, essentially, monsters just like other corrupted NPCs (this is why they can't interact with storage or crafting tables and are KOS to guards) There's no reason for a green player to need to flag up to kill monsters.
Caeryl wrote: » I'm perfectly fine with PKs, but this whole thread is some woe-is-solo-red mentality.
Pendragxn wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Green attacking anyone should make them a combatant since they initiated it Well if you’re flagged red you’ve already accepted that risk that you could be attacked or plan to attack someone. There’s no reason to initiate greens as combatants as they can only attack or respond to reds. if the green attacks a red they saying right i accept pvp so should become combatant since at that stage they now opted into pvp which is what the whole flagging system is for. Also whats the point of bounty hunter system if it now becomes safer to hunt reds as a green since if your bounty hunter you can be killed and not make the corruption worst and as a green player u kleave the red player the option to run away, die or make your curruption worst. You know whats gonna happen is there be 1 bounty hunter using the tracking ability to find red players and they just send green player friend to actually kil the red player while they stay back safely so he can never escape due to always being able to track them. However if the green kills the red then surely the BH player won’t get any rewards. There is no point sending greens to do it as it won’t contribute to BH progression. Maybe they need a system as well where when you’re doing bounty hunting you can only invite other BH’s to your party as you would all be flagged the same for PvP. I honestly just prefer the lawless zone concept where everyone knows the risks and what they’re getting into. In Albion Online you can flag for PvP as a red and attack normal players who can respond but it doesn’t also make them flagged hostile for defending themselves. The black zone which is kind of like the lawless zone you know what you’re getting into as it’s a PvP/PvX zone. What I said the first time was correct about BH being purple as that’s flagged as a combatant but not corrupted. A green can attack a red and incur no change in status it’s exactly like Albion’s flagging system except corrupted are just Reds flagged as hostile for PvP. BH’s outside of the lawless zone would be classed as purple of which if they attack a green they become Red or corrupted. If a green attacks a purple they become a combatant so also Purple. The system is good very balanced however my first assumption of how it works is correct regardless of it’s a status or flagging system it still works the same way. I also don’t see greens as people who want to get into conflict in the first place that’s why they’re green but have the right to defend themselves from Reds or hostile players. I see BH’s as more of a PvP progression system outside of lawless zones kind of like the PvP Progression or Battle Pass system in New World where you get XP based on PvP contribution. The thing that needs to be looked at is how is the BH system different to a standard PvP progression system assuming they’ll have a separate system for that too. The system is there to stop reds carelessly attacking greens and griefing them without any consequences. The BH’s counter the hostile reds who would harass the green or average players. Anyways a true PvPer would just do wars, sieges or go to lawless zones there’s no fun in flagging red to bully greens. Again this is separate from the caravan system or PvX events in the open world as you’re initiating those plus know the risks. We don’t need to protect the reds! Flagging red or becoming corrupted is probably just a good way to practice ganking but comes with consequence, however gankers will group up so it won’t be just one hostile red you’re facing if the game allows it there will be a party of them.
Veeshan wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Green attacking anyone should make them a combatant since they initiated it Well if you’re flagged red you’ve already accepted that risk that you could be attacked or plan to attack someone. There’s no reason to initiate greens as combatants as they can only attack or respond to reds. if the green attacks a red they saying right i accept pvp so should become combatant since at that stage they now opted into pvp which is what the whole flagging system is for. Also whats the point of bounty hunter system if it now becomes safer to hunt reds as a green since if your bounty hunter you can be killed and not make the corruption worst and as a green player u kleave the red player the option to run away, die or make your curruption worst. You know whats gonna happen is there be 1 bounty hunter using the tracking ability to find red players and they just send green player friend to actually kil the red player while they stay back safely so he can never escape due to always being able to track them.
Pendragxn wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Green attacking anyone should make them a combatant since they initiated it Well if you’re flagged red you’ve already accepted that risk that you could be attacked or plan to attack someone. There’s no reason to initiate greens as combatants as they can only attack or respond to reds.
Veeshan wrote: » Green attacking anyone should make them a combatant since they initiated it
ShivaFang wrote: » Corrupted players are, essentially, monsters just like other corrupted NPCs (this is why they can't interact with storage or crafting tables and are KOS to guards) There's no reason for a green player to need to flag up to kill monsters. What this does is loosen up the restrictions on red players a bit and discourages greens from turning around to kill reds just because a swarm of other players rolled by. This is contrary to the goal of the system. That is exactly one of the restrictions that is intended for corrupted players.
Veeshan wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Veeshan wrote: » Green attacking anyone should make them a combatant since they initiated it Well if you’re flagged red you’ve already accepted that risk that you could be attacked or plan to attack someone. There’s no reason to initiate greens as combatants as they can only attack or respond to reds. if the green attacks a red they saying right i accept pvp so should become combatant since at that stage they now opted into pvp which is what the whole flagging system is for. Also whats the point of bounty hunter system if it now becomes safer to hunt reds as a green since if your bounty hunter you can be killed and not make the corruption worst and as a green player u kleave the red player the option to run away, die or make your curruption worst. You know whats gonna happen is there be 1 bounty hunter using the tracking ability to find red players and they just send green player friend to actually kil the red player while they stay back safely so he can never escape due to always being able to track them. However if the green kills the red then surely the BH player won’t get any rewards. There is no point sending greens to do it as it won’t contribute to BH progression. Maybe they need a system as well where when you’re doing bounty hunting you can only invite other BH’s to your party as you would all be flagged the same for PvP. I honestly just prefer the lawless zone concept where everyone knows the risks and what they’re getting into. In Albion Online you can flag for PvP as a red and attack normal players who can respond but it doesn’t also make them flagged hostile for defending themselves. The black zone which is kind of like the lawless zone you know what you’re getting into as it’s a PvP/PvX zone. What I said the first time was correct about BH being purple as that’s flagged as a combatant but not corrupted. A green can attack a red and incur no change in status it’s exactly like Albion’s flagging system except corrupted are just Reds flagged as hostile for PvP. BH’s outside of the lawless zone would be classed as purple of which if they attack a green they become Red or corrupted. If a green attacks a purple they become a combatant so also Purple. The system is good very balanced however my first assumption of how it works is correct regardless of it’s a status or flagging system it still works the same way. I also don’t see greens as people who want to get into conflict in the first place that’s why they’re green but have the right to defend themselves from Reds or hostile players. I see BH’s as more of a PvP progression system outside of lawless zones kind of like the PvP Progression or Battle Pass system in New World where you get XP based on PvP contribution. The thing that needs to be looked at is how is the BH system different to a standard PvP progression system assuming they’ll have a separate system for that too. The system is there to stop reds carelessly attacking greens and griefing them without any consequences. The BH’s counter the hostile reds who would harass the green or average players. Anyways a true PvPer would just do wars, sieges or go to lawless zones there’s no fun in flagging red to bully greens. Again this is separate from the caravan system or PvX events in the open world as you’re initiating those plus know the risks. We don’t need to protect the reds! Flagging red or becoming corrupted is probably just a good way to practice ganking but comes with consequence, however gankers will group up so it won’t be just one hostile red you’re facing if the game allows it there will be a party of them. i see BH sending green to weaken a target then finish them off, BH will be incentivised to use greens with current system since if they kill the green BH get more reward to kill them since there now more corrupt, having green players in the fight also means the red target now has an enemy they cant attack and have to avoid while there fighting the BH at the same time if they do kill the green then the BH gets more reward so it a win win for them. Not to mention with current set up green players are immune to CC effect so they have a further advantage in a fight especially when red players will also most likly be under the effect of stat dampening aswell. If a green attacks anyone they should be purple no matter what by attacking they say yes im ok to PvP and when the flagging system in place to reduce involuntary pvp (killing somone who doesnt want to fight) by punishing that player by corrupting them then it not needed if the green player go o look ima attack you i opt into this pvp situation
