Caeryl wrote: » 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. The CC immunity on greens exists specifically because greens take more death penalties, and people were using CC locking to kill players before they had any chance to flag up. It wasn't something added 'just because', but because it is more detrimental to die green and it was being abused. The scaling penalty is a self balancing system against greens risking more to attack you. You are not required to continue PKing. A chronic red player can PK, take their goodies, and then leave. If they PK within shouting distance of other greens, they're an idiot who got what was coming. There's not 'just one intended PK' in a whole group on group fight. You sign up and commit to the PK knowing exactly what you're doing, and it make 100000% perfect sense that when their group turns on for you for the PK, you eat your consequences. There no handholding to protect greens from dying, and no handholding to protect reds from the consequences of PKing.
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.
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.
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.
Caeryl wrote: » 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 What kind of people are you grouping with that won't defend or heal you when you flag red until you've worked it off? Surely you're actually doing content alongside your PvP, otherwise that's the sort of pointless grief PK that the system is designed to avoid. Edit: Misread, but even that scenario makes no sense. Of course you'd fight back. A ding of corruption isn't equal to losing a whole entire player when there's no fast travel, much less letting multiple players die.
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
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: » 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.
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: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. The CC immunity on greens exists specifically because greens take more death penalties, and people were using CC locking to kill players before they had any chance to flag up. It wasn't something added 'just because', but because it is more detrimental to die green and it was being abused. The scaling penalty is a self balancing system against greens risking more to attack you. You are not required to continue PKing. A chronic red player can PK, take their goodies, and then leave. If they PK within shouting distance of other greens, they're an idiot who got what was coming. There's not 'just one intended PK' in a whole group on group fight. You sign up and commit to the PK knowing exactly what you're doing, and it make 100000% perfect sense that when their group turns on for you for the PK, you eat your consequences. There no handholding to protect greens from dying, and no handholding to protect reds from the consequences of PKing. Corruption isnt meant to deter PKing...it is meant to deter griefing. So a player who PKs few and far between should not be getting the same punishment as players clearly griefing. If I player PKs the same player 10 times in 30 mins? Yea, allow that guy to gain more corruption when greens attack them. But if a player killed someone once because they kept following them and gathering their resources right in front of them, probably a bit extreme to punish the player to the same extent and as a result force even more punishment upon them if they just try to defend themselves
Birthday wrote: » Penalties should stay very harsh for Reds. This is the only way to ensure this game wont turn into PK-fest. By having harsh penalties for Reds you ensure that the players in the game will be more likely to be killing for strategic purposes. By loosening the penalties for Reds this will make players think about PK-festing for fun and 0 strategical reason. An increased amount of PK-fests for fun would ruin the whole RPG-fantasy setting of the game. It'll turn into DayZ where players almost never talk with you or ask to group up. Instead everyone just runs around until they get a weapon and then start killing others.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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 What kind of people are you grouping with that won't defend or heal you when you flag red until you've worked it off? Surely you're actually doing content alongside your PvP, otherwise that's the sort of pointless grief PK that the system is designed to avoid. Edit: Misread, but even that scenario makes no sense. Of course you'd fight back. A ding of corruption isn't equal to losing a whole entire player when there's no fast travel, much less letting multiple players die. I would absolutely accept the death and run to corrupt an entire party for my party to wipe out and get 4 times as much loot from with the chance of gear drops as well. The incentive to not fight back is exponentially rewarding in terms of group vs group.
Dolyem wrote: » Birthday wrote: » Penalties should stay very harsh for Reds. This is the only way to ensure this game wont turn into PK-fest. By having harsh penalties for Reds you ensure that the players in the game will be more likely to be killing for strategic purposes. By loosening the penalties for Reds this will make players think about PK-festing for fun and 0 strategical reason. An increased amount of PK-fests for fun would ruin the whole RPG-fantasy setting of the game. It'll turn into DayZ where players almost never talk with you or ask to group up. Instead everyone just runs around until they get a weapon and then start killing others. Penalties should be enough to prevent GRIEFING....not PKing. As a result you wont have excessive PKing. It should be enough to have natural PvP, but not so punishing that the game just becomes a PVE server.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. The CC immunity on greens exists specifically because greens take more death penalties, and people were using CC locking to kill players before they had any chance to flag up. It wasn't something added 'just because', but because it is more detrimental to die green and it was being abused. The scaling penalty is a self balancing system against greens risking more to attack you. You are not required to continue PKing. A chronic red player can PK, take their goodies, and then leave. If they PK within shouting distance of other greens, they're an idiot who got what was coming. There's not 'just one intended PK' in a whole group on group fight. You sign up and commit to the PK knowing exactly what you're doing, and it make 100000% perfect sense that when their group turns on for you for the PK, you eat your consequences. There no handholding to protect greens from dying, and no handholding to protect reds from the consequences of PKing. Corruption isnt meant to deter PKing...it is meant to deter griefing. So a player who PKs few and far between should not be getting the same punishment as players clearly griefing. If I player PKs the same player 10 times in 30 mins? Yea, allow that guy to gain more corruption when greens attack them. But if a player killed someone once because they kept following them and gathering their resources right in front of them, probably a bit extreme to punish the player to the same extent and as a result force even more punishment upon them if they just try to defend themselves Bolded the most entitled thing I've seen in a while. It isn't 'your' anything. There is no mechanical difference between killing a green for contesting a gathering spot, killing a green who was scouting for a rival guild, or killing a green just for existing. The game could never know and so going on about which red 'deserves' anything is pointless. It's all reds or no reds. Corruption is meant to deter meaningless PK, as dying green is actively detrimental, aka you should be using PK to gain an advantage for yourself if you've deemed the consequences worth it, not killing players over things that even they themselves don't believe matters enough to protect. If someone is dying green, eating that increased exp debt and stat dampening, then on their end they decided what they have isn't worth what you gain off them. Thats a balance that'll change per-player, and if you have a group, it'll likely be worth that PK because now your whole group benefits off control of that area or that boss or having that loot. If you're trying to solo PK, that's not supported behavior and requires a higher degree of skill and thought to do successfully. On the other hand, you don't have to split your gains with a group and it's easier to move around as just one person.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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 What kind of people are you grouping with that won't defend or heal you when you flag red until you've worked it off? Surely you're actually doing content alongside your PvP, otherwise that's the sort of pointless grief PK that the system is designed to avoid. Edit: Misread, but even that scenario makes no sense. Of course you'd fight back. A ding of corruption isn't equal to losing a whole entire player when there's no fast travel, much less letting multiple players die. I would absolutely accept the death and run to corrupt an entire party for my party to wipe out and get 4 times as much loot from with the chance of gear drops as well. The incentive to not fight back is exponentially rewarding in terms of group vs group. Your entire group with exp debt, dampened stats, mining a chunk of mats and gold you all had, gear damaged, having to manually run back after the rival group already had 10-15minutes free time with the area? Yeah, I'm sure that'll go well for you when you could've fought and taken out some of theirs from the get-go. Sounds like you're just looking for ways to cheese no matter what side of the fight you're on.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Birthday wrote: » Penalties should stay very harsh for Reds. This is the only way to ensure this game wont turn into PK-fest. By having harsh penalties for Reds you ensure that the players in the game will be more likely to be killing for strategic purposes. By loosening the penalties for Reds this will make players think about PK-festing for fun and 0 strategical reason. An increased amount of PK-fests for fun would ruin the whole RPG-fantasy setting of the game. It'll turn into DayZ where players almost never talk with you or ask to group up. Instead everyone just runs around until they get a weapon and then start killing others. Penalties should be enough to prevent GRIEFING....not PKing. As a result you wont have excessive PKing. It should be enough to have natural PvP, but not so punishing that the game just becomes a PVE server. A 'PvE server' except caravans are free PvP zones and the best mats come from free PvP zones and nodes are built and destroy through PvP and node leadership can be won through PvP and world bosses will have free PvP areas and you can PvP anyone at any time just not without temporary consequence and mindful gameplay. That's your idea of a PvE server?
Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones. When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
Sathrago wrote: » The ironic thing is, with the current system of corruption you will be actively encouraged to grief a red player until they are no longer red. each death potentially stealing weeks of work. All because some gatherer would rather die than properly contend for a patch of daisies.
Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones. When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback. So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place. That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it. There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas.
Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones. When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback. So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place. That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it. There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas. As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back. So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat. What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing?
Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Pendragxn wrote: » I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone. It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones. When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback. So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place. That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it. There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas. As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back. So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat. What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing? That’s not normal PK’ing though as normal PK’ing is knowing the risk such as in a lawless zone I’ve accepted the risk. The risk being it’s a PvP zone so I know anyone who’s not in my guild, group or alliance could be a threat. At that point I’ve accepted the fact I could be ganked or even end up fighting over resources. However a green who is neither in a lawless PvP zone or flagged for combat who probably doesn’t want to fight doesn’t necessarily know or accept the risk of being PK’d. What you’re doing at that point is getting upset over resources in a non-PvP zone or trying to force them out of a farming area which is griefing. A caravan system is the same thing as a PvP zone you know the risk that there’s an opt-in PvP system and PK’ing system for caravans. If you’re silly enough to transport knowing you can be attacked by people opting into being a combatant or potentially stealing your goods, and you don’t take precautions or get friends to help you transport or plan a safe route that’s at your own risk.
Dolyem wrote: » ganking isnt griefing
