Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption. Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'. So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening? Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place? Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily. Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it. thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption. Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'. So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening? Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place? Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily. Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption. Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'. So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening? Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption. Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked.
Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions.
Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him.
Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time.
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.
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.
Otr wrote: » No, they are not monsters.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption. Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'. So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening? Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place? Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily. Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it. thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen. Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there? Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight. The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
Caeryl wrote: » Your problems all vanish if you play in a group. Even solo PKing works if you're smart and pick your battles wisely with an evasion plan in mind. It only escalates when you do something stupid like PK solo in the face of a group.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption. Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'. So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening? Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place? Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily. Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it. thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen. Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there? Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight. The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics. Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption. Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'. So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening? Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place? Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily. Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it. thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen. Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there? Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight. The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics. Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing. Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP. We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds. PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone. You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game. There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok'
Dolyem wrote: » It could still remain simple seeing as there are technically 4 flagged states. Bounty hunters flag to corrupted players and dont cause more corruption when killed, but remain as non-combatants to non-corrupt players. It would be as simple as applying this to noncombatants who attack corrupted players initially to avoid the whole snowballing corruption debacle. You would still get you flat rate corrupted penalties, but youd also be not punishing players who arent actually griefing with a black hole of kills they never intended to commit because of defending themselves. It still even maintains the entire concept of keeping non-combatants who dont want to engage in combat under the protection of causing corruption. Seems like a simple fix. Hows that for maintaining simplicity?
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption. Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'. So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening? Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place? Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily. Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it. thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen. Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there? Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight. The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics. Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing. Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP. We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds. PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone. You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game. There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok' Thats your opinion, and holds no objectivity. We go by Stevens provided definition for griefing, which comes down to intent behind the PK. Killing you once for some resources and then leaving you alone is no worse than killing you for any zone control/content. Its only bad when I am intentionally trying to ruin your gameplay experience. For one, you dont know what payouts will be better or not, nor if the risks are greater or less. Largescale PvP events are much different than 1v1 or 8v8. They tend to require much more planning and arent necessarily spontaneous. PKing absolutely can be a high gains playstyle if it comes to resource control. Otherwise youll have nothing to worry about as there would be no point to fight for said resources. And while there is no corruption for Caravan PvP, there are still some death penalties. Including gear degradation and material drops. And like I said several times already, it comes down to punishing griefing rather than punishing PvP. If people are actively fighting against eachother, thats PvP regardless of anyones flagged status, which should mean a corrupted player shouldnt be punished for any of those kills, because its not able to be defined as griefing in this case..... BUT, if its a corrupted player killing someone who doesnt fight back, that player should absolutely gain more corruption because enough of these kills in a short enough time could absolutely be defined as griefing. All you want is to continue to punish anyone who turns red for fighting back regardless of if it is a grief or not. This deters both PvP AND Griefing, instead of just Griefing. And thats bad design for what corruption is intended as far as what Stevens stated Corruption design is
Caeryl wrote: » Yeah lmfao. Dude is hopeless to talk to
Aszkalon wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Yeah lmfao. Dude is hopeless to talk to I mean that i can understand his point ... ... People can of Course - and will of Course - use the completely PvP-enabled Open World to griefplay-PK others. But it will be limited. Corruption will hinder them to pester People for Hours, i hope.
Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. A change could also be to remove them completely. Because BH can see on the map where the red is and can share the information with green players without even going to hunt the red. If the red enters the ocean and then moves to the other continent(????) greens engaging him there, who never left their node are most likely not involved in getting revenge for their buddy..
Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. A change could also be to remove them completely. Because BH can see on the map where the red is and can share the information with green players without even going to hunt the red. If the red enters the ocean and then moves to the other continent(????) greens engaging him there, who never left their node are most likely not involved in getting revenge for their buddy.. You are not that special that any player would have it out for you in particular. You're red, that means via game mechanics and game narrative that you are a known murderer/monster/corrupted mob. Also if you spent hours traveling across open sea and still didn't get enough exp to clear your corruption, you went on a spree worth a massive penalty. Seas are challenge zones and PvP hot spots. You should be soaking in exp gains there
Otr wrote: » No matter how the effort to clear the corruption is, the Bounty Hunters should be able to hunt the red also after it cleared it.
Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. A change could also be to remove them completely. Because BH can see on the map where the red is and can share the information with green players without even going to hunt the red. If the red enters the ocean and then moves to the other continent(????) greens engaging him there, who never left their node are most likely not involved in getting revenge for their buddy.. You are not that special that any player would have it out for you in particular. You're red, that means via game mechanics and game narrative that you are a known murderer/monster/corrupted mob. Also if you spent hours traveling across open sea and still didn't get enough exp to clear your corruption, you went on a spree worth a massive penalty. Seas are challenge zones and PvP hot spots. You should be soaking in exp gains there Now you back out from your argument that "the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know." and revert to the "all greens should be able to kill a red anywhere" I am not protecting the red against green. I just try to find a balance for the Bounty Hunter while you don't even try. Come up with some solutions too don't just debate and cancel whatever suggestions I make.
Regarding deep sea, my assumption is that you cannot clear corruption there. That would allow any player to kill near the lawless zone and then run to safety where friendly groups can defend him.
No matter how the effort to clear the corruption is, the Bounty Hunters should be able to hunt the red also after it cleared it. That is equivalent to having two stages: 1) rage stage, where greens can hunt the red. Green stays green. BH gets no progression if attacks but acts as a green. BH also cannot see the Red on the map. 2) punishable by law stage, where BH can detect the former stage 1 red. Green becomes Purple if fights. This would also mitigate cases where players cooperate to help a BH to get progression fast near a farming spot.
Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » It could still remain simple seeing as there are technically 4 flagged states. Bounty hunters flag to corrupted players and dont cause more corruption when killed, but remain as non-combatants to non-corrupt players. It would be as simple as applying this to noncombatants who attack corrupted players initially to avoid the whole snowballing corruption debacle. You would still get you flat rate corrupted penalties, but youd also be not punishing players who arent actually griefing with a black hole of kills they never intended to commit because of defending themselves. It still even maintains the entire concept of keeping non-combatants who dont want to engage in combat under the protection of causing corruption. Seems like a simple fix. Hows that for maintaining simplicity? I've talked about this before. This kind of design would simply mean that no PKer will ever be punished (because they can always fight back, which means that a super strong player will never gain more corruption than he wants). Imo the design of "going corrupt is your last resort in a pvp competition" is better than "going corrupt is super easy, cause no matter who attacks you afterwards - you're free to kill them w/o any additional penalty". And I believe it's better because it creates a new gameplay situation. Your risk shoots through the roof and you now have to play way more carefully if you want to avoid death and/or more corruption. Also, a question related to your suggestion. What state would a healer who supports this "green that's flagged vs a PKer" get? Would the healer become flagged for everyone? Just for the PKer? Would he not get flagged at all?
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption. Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'. So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening? Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place? Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily. Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it. thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen. Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there? Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight. The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics. Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing. Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP. We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds. PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone. You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game. There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok' Thats your opinion, and holds no objectivity. We go by Stevens provided definition for griefing, which comes down to intent behind the PK. Killing you once for some resources and then leaving you alone is no worse than killing you for any zone control/content. Its only bad when I am intentionally trying to ruin your gameplay experience. For one, you dont know what payouts will be better or not, nor if the risks are greater or less. Largescale PvP events are much different than 1v1 or 8v8. They tend to require much more planning and arent necessarily spontaneous. PKing absolutely can be a high gains playstyle if it comes to resource control. Otherwise youll have nothing to worry about as there would be no point to fight for said resources. And while there is no corruption for Caravan PvP, there are still some death penalties. Including gear degradation and material drops. And like I said several times already, it comes down to punishing griefing rather than punishing PvP. If people are actively fighting against eachother, thats PvP regardless of anyones flagged status, which should mean a corrupted player shouldnt be punished for any of those kills, because its not able to be defined as griefing in this case..... BUT, if its a corrupted player killing someone who doesnt fight back, that player should absolutely gain more corruption because enough of these kills in a short enough time could absolutely be defined as griefing. All you want is to continue to punish anyone who turns red for fighting back regardless of if it is a grief or not. This deters both PvP AND Griefing, instead of just Griefing. And thats bad design for what corruption is intended as far as what Stevens stated Corruption design is In what way is it opinion to say "code can't read players' minds" but not "this will scare away PvPers"? Why would Corruption scare away PvPers when the most important and impactful PvP systems don't have Corruption at all? It'll make people think twice about ganking as their main playstyle, which is working exactly as intended. Corruption starting and ending at one kill is perfectly doable, if you choose to stop killing greens. If you are smart and don't hang around hotspots after a PK while red. If you don't PK solo around groups. There are sooooo many ways to avoid these penalties you're scared of just by playing smart and making plans ahead of time, especially if you work within an group as it's intended, but even if you do choose to try it solo it's possible. You are never required to kill another green. If you wanna avoid your death penalties by fighting back, keep doing so at your own risk, or lean on allies, learn how to evade people, or just eat the single round of penalties by letting this imaginary 'mob of greens' kill you and you'll no longer be red. One PK isn't zero %, but it's still a minuscule chance of dropping gear at one kill unless you are chronically ganking and have a deep corruption score for the character. If you don't wanna play smart to avoid situations where you'll have other greens on you for a PK, you don't want to group up with people who will have your back and keep you alive through whatever conflict happens, and you don't want to eat the consequences of death while corrupted but you also don't want the consequences of avoiding it, and you still want the game to coddles reds for 'self defense', then this game might not be for you.
Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Otr wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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. That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect. Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time. I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game. I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him. There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios. Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions. Player action is that they engage in combat. They PvP. It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked. Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know. You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red. Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it. A change could also be to remove them completely. Because BH can see on the map where the red is and can share the information with green players without even going to hunt the red. If the red enters the ocean and then moves to the other continent(????) greens engaging him there, who never left their node are most likely not involved in getting revenge for their buddy.. You are not that special that any player would have it out for you in particular. You're red, that means via game mechanics and game narrative that you are a known murderer/monster/corrupted mob. Also if you spent hours traveling across open sea and still didn't get enough exp to clear your corruption, you went on a spree worth a massive penalty. Seas are challenge zones and PvP hot spots. You should be soaking in exp gains there Now you back out from your argument that "the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know." and revert to the "all greens should be able to kill a red anywhere" I am not protecting the red against green. I just try to find a balance for the Bounty Hunter while you don't even try. Come up with some solutions too don't just debate and cancel whatever suggestions I make. We don't know how fast can the red clear the corruption. It can happen that Steven will balance it to be fast and just farming some XP at the farming spot will be enough and the green returning after being killed will find the attacker already green. Regarding deep sea, my assumption is that you cannot clear corruption there. That would allow any player to kill near the lawless zone and then run to safety where friendly groups can defend him. I will make one more attempt for the Bounty Hunters. No matter how the effort to clear the corruption is, the Bounty Hunters should be able to hunt the red also after it cleared it. That is equivalent to having two stages: 1) rage stage, where greens can hunt the red. Green stays green. BH gets no progression if attacks but acts as a green. BH also cannot see the Red on the map. 2) punishable by law stage, where BH can detect the former stage 1 red. Green becomes Purple if fights. This would also mitigate cases where players cooperate to help a BH to get progression fast near a farming spot.
Dolyem wrote: » Definitely planning to test out going corrupt and jumping on a friends ship to go work off corruption.
CROW3 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Definitely planning to test out going corrupt and jumping on a friends ship to go work off corruption. Careful, your corruption may become a key part of my gear acquisition plan. One of the things I do like about the ocean being a lawless zone is that it gives bandits a place to run to. Like Charlie and Michael hoofing it to the sea in Beirut 'They won't fuck with us in the water.' Gold star to anyone who get's that reference.
