Veeshan 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? The issue isnt the consequences of kiling a green and going red initially the issue is what if you go red for what ever reason and then that 1 point of corruption can quickly snowball into 2 point then 3 point then 4 point and 5 point 6 point and so on just defending one self from green players attacking u afterwards is a death spiral basically u have 0 game play option to avoid it especialy when there BH that can track ur movement. When the only option you have is to let somone kill you its bad game design and thats what we currently have. Now the other option is green players dont flag purple when they attack a red player however if a green player initiates an attack a red player they get a debuff on them where they remain green however if they are killed by the player who they attacked that player wont be given corruption since it was self defence.
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?
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.
So the only options here imo is 1 - green players are flagged as combatants wwhen hitting corrupted players (defeats the purpose of the penalties) Or 2 - Green players who initiate an attack on a red player will not add corruption to the player if they are killed since it would be considered as self defence. (defeats the purpose of the penalties)
Otherwise people will game the system and grief players, i know i would send low level green players over and over again after reds if i was a bounty hunter with current set up simply so there easy to kill for red player and provide the most corruption penalty if they are killed hence rewarding me with more potential item drops off the corrupted player when i do choose to attack him since thats would provide the most reward and the only option the red player will have is to get widdled down and killed by the lowbie greens or to go deeper and deeper into corruption penalty. it not a good game loop for bounty hunters or corrupted players so no corrupted players = no bounty hunter activity so realy your remove that whole aspect of the game
Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » I'm perfectly fine with PKs, but this whole thread is some woe-is-solo-red mentality. Players can be the last survivor of a group trying to use the green mechanic to escape. They can be a healer and holding resources in their inventory. The attacking group might also have only 1-2 remaining survivors. And I see no reason to dismiss game mechanic improvements just because the arguments are analyzed with small number of participants.
Caeryl wrote: » I'm perfectly fine with PKs, but this whole thread is some woe-is-solo-red mentality.
Caeryl wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » you gotta see that the flagging system in AoC wasn't based on good logic, it is just based on carebear spit against people who ganked them while they were cutting wood in other games, so don't expect great flagging system This is a pretty standard flagging and penalty system that encourages fighting back over worthwhile areas while still allowing PK over the frivolous things. Anyone that uses the term 'carebear' unironically usually proves themselves to be a much bigger one than whatever demographic they're crying foul over. Going red is a choice you have that comes with its own downsides and small perks, same as staying green which has.. well, no perks honestly. Personally, I don't see how it's not just as much a plus for reds that non-combatants can't flag up on them. Either they wait out the corruption and eat no extra penalties and get no extra gains by not murder hobo'ing, or they can keep killing players that come after them and gain full value off those kills that they'd otherwise only be getting half of.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » you gotta see that the flagging system in AoC wasn't based on good logic, it is just based on carebear spit against people who ganked them while they were cutting wood in other games, so don't expect great flagging system
Otr wrote: » Not true.
Otr wrote: » 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. No, they are not monsters. They are maybe on the path of becoming monsters but they are not yet. Even Dygz would call fighting red players as a PvP activity rather than a PvE one because he sees the humanity in them. Guards attack red players to protect cities from becoming a place where you get killed near a bank. Storage is not accessible to prevent loopholes where the red can dump inventory before being killed by bounty hunters. Whatever NPCs we fight, if they have weapons it means they know the technology to create them and can open storage too if needed. Calling them monsters is a human way of labeling those who sided with The Others.
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.
Otr wrote: » No, they are not monsters.
ShivaFang wrote: » Otr wrote: » No, they are not monsters. They fundamentally are, at least they are close enough that it matters until they purify it. That's why they can't trade or access storage and have other limitations. Corruption isn't just some arbitrary karma mechanic, but is a mechanic derived in lore.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » you gotta see that the flagging system in AoC wasn't based on good logic, it is just based on carebear spit against people who ganked them while they were cutting wood in other games, so don't expect great flagging system This is a pretty standard flagging and penalty system that encourages fighting back over worthwhile areas while still allowing PK over the frivolous things. Anyone that uses the term 'carebear' unironically usually proves themselves to be a much bigger one than whatever demographic they're crying foul over. Going red is a choice you have that comes with its own downsides and small perks, same as staying green which has.. well, no perks honestly. Personally, I don't see how it's not just as much a plus for reds that non-combatants can't flag up on them. Either they wait out the corruption and eat no extra penalties and get no extra gains by not murder hobo'ing, or they can keep killing players that come after them and gain full value off those kills that they'd otherwise only be getting half of. Blah blah, the flagging system is boring as your comment, a game can still have a flagging system and still be interesting for everybody but its the case i AoC. My problem with AoC is that things start looking very interesting but in the end things always fall short, the taste of everything starts well and ends up in a letdown
Otr wrote: » ShivaFang wrote: » Otr wrote: » No, they are not monsters. They fundamentally are, at least they are close enough that it matters until they purify it. That's why they can't trade or access storage and have other limitations. Corruption isn't just some arbitrary karma mechanic, but is a mechanic derived in lore. You said "There's no mind games at all in this interaction." And we talk about the game design not how players can use it. You can do what you want but others will not read your thoughts and guess your intentions.
Pendragxn wrote: » 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 Lastly this is not a ganking game this is a PvP game where they’re trying to avoid griefing people it’s not supposed to be easy for a Red/Hostile player. If you want to PvP you have better dynamic PvP events like the caravan or other opt-in systems. There is also the lawless zone or naval combat on the open-seas you’d better off becoming a pirate 🏴☠️
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
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
Dolyem wrote: » I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
Sathrago wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime. yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot. I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
Dolyem wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime. yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot. I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation." It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced entirely as a result.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime. It's not 'excessive' to have consequences for stupid choices. - You know who's in the immediate area when you commit a PK because you can see them - You know about where the nearest settlement/hub is because it's on your map - You know if you have group mates nearby because you'll be in the same group If you get swamped by greens before you're able to run away after a PK, then you made a poor choice when considering the three conditions above, especially if you're on a class with out mobility tools to escape.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime. yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot. I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation." It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced entirely as a result. It'll deter solo PKers and ones that feel the need to be babied when they make an error and PK around other non-combatants.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime. It's not 'excessive' to have consequences for stupid choices. - You know who's in the immediate area when you commit a PK because you can see them - You know about where the nearest settlement/hub is because it's on your map - You know if you have group mates nearby because you'll be in the same group If you get swamped by greens before you're able to run away after a PK, then you made a poor choice when considering the three conditions above, especially if you're on a class with out mobility tools to escape. Consequences are fine, but in this case the consequences are excessive. By your own logic green players shouldnt get any CC immunity against attackers because they should know that by going into the wild that they can be attacked and should be more aware while making that choice. You can be fully aware of the consequences, that doesnt mean that they arent excessive to whatever triggers them.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime. yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot. I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation." It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced entirely as a result. It'll deter solo PKers and ones that feel the need to be babied when they make an error and PK around other non-combatants. it will deter group PKers just as much. Pushing away a single player with a PK will doom both solo PKers and groups alike. And to even fight back to save that player in your party getting PKed is foolish since youll get to kill a bunch of corrupted players and get more loot
