Dolyem wrote: » 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. Hahaha, bring it on! I more or less want to see how it feels if a corrupted player is able to jump onto a guildies ship and sail away tucked away in the haul until they find a nice spot to grind xp. If I can get away with it 9 times out of 10, I feel like it may need a bit of a barrier to that sort of thing.
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.
Dolyem wrote: » Definitely planning to test out going corrupt and jumping on a friends ship to go work off corruption.
CROW3 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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. Hahaha, bring it on! I more or less want to see how it feels if a corrupted player is able to jump onto a guildies ship and sail away tucked away in the haul until they find a nice spot to grind xp. If I can get away with it 9 times out of 10, I feel like it may need a bit of a barrier to that sort of thing. Yeah - it would be interesting to see if you could organize a small squad for exactly this kind of incursion and escape for a handy profit.
AlmostDead wrote: » I wasn't able to find the answer to this on the wiki. Anyone know? I am green. I get attacked by a purple. I heal myself in attempt to avoid death, but do not fight back. Do I flag for healing myself? Another one: I am green. I get attacked by a purple. I cc the purple in attempt to escape, but do not do any damage. Do I flag for the cc?
Dolyem wrote: » 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. "Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP." This is what I was referring to as an opinion. Corruption, as is, will deter open world PvP. Thats what corruption is effecting. Its goal is to deter griefing, not open world PvP engagement. You constantly directing PvP players to PvP events makes it seem like you dont want any open world PvP 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.
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: » 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: » 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: » 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.
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.
"just give up if you are corrupted" is a wild suggestion, but as is, thats pretty much all one will likely be able to do once engaged. Even without gaining corruption for defending oneself, every corrupted player with even a single kill is incentivized to be very careful while they work it off due to the death penalties.
I honestly want to know how I am suggesting corrupted players be coddled with all of the death penalties they recieve, along with the disadvantages that defending themselves against a non-combatant already gives. This is purely a suggestion based on the intent of the system. Dont deter PvP, focus on the actual griefing. I get it, if you get killed once randomly, you think whoever did that is the worst person in the world even if you never see them again so you think they should burn in hell.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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. "Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP." This is what I was referring to as an opinion. Corruption, as is, will deter open world PvP. Thats what corruption is effecting. Its goal is to deter griefing, not open world PvP engagement. You constantly directing PvP players to PvP events makes it seem like you dont want any open world PvP at all. Sure, an opinion based in observable facts. If you're fighting over things that do not matter, the crumbs of resources in common areas that people regularly will not defend to the point of dying green and taking extra penalties, then that is bottom of the barrel. It has the lowest impact of any kind of PvP. Contested valuable spots in open sea or other lawless zones (should land based ones make itto launch), world events with rare drops and irregular spawn rates, or dungeons all open to PvP are what the open world PvP is here for. It's for making an impact on the world, the pointless 1v1 scuffling over crumbs of resources is not meaningful PvP. "just give up if you are corrupted" is a wild suggestion, but as is, thats pretty much all one will likely be able to do once engaged. Even without gaining corruption for defending oneself, every corrupted player with even a single kill is incentivized to be very careful while they work it off due to the death penalties. If you're too scared to fight back and eat more corruption, too foolish to have planned an escape route, and too haughty to have group mates around, then yes, minimize your losses instead of whining about how unfair it is that you can be attacked. I honestly want to know how I am suggesting corrupted players be coddled with all of the death penalties they recieve, along with the disadvantages that defending themselves against a non-combatant already gives. This is purely a suggestion based on the intent of the system. Dont deter PvP, focus on the actual griefing. I get it, if you get killed once randomly, you think whoever did that is the worst person in the world even if you never see them again so you think they should burn in hell. The only one equating open world meaningful PvP in the open world to ganking is you. If you and your group fight over things that matter, you will rarely ever be dealing with Corruption. If you're lone-wolf killing greens in populated areas, you're an idiot, first off, and secondly, it's exactly the sort of behavior that's trying to be avoided. Like Lud already said, reds should not be the ones getting to decide how severe their penalties become, which is all your suggestion would do. Use your brain, disengage, and run if you are so stubbornly against having a group to do your open world PvP with.
Dolyem wrote: » All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant. Now if you argue that instead of avoiding corruption when defending oneself, a red can CC non-combatants fighting them so they can attempt to CC and disengage instead of committing to the kill, mind you getting away is not guaranteed since the corrupted players could be CCed as well. Thatd be a reasonable argument on your part. But as it currently is, a corrupted player is doomed the second they get spotted by anyone willing to attack them. Their only options as is are to die, or to fight back and fall further into corruption. There is zero option to disengage.
Azherae wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant. Now if you argue that instead of avoiding corruption when defending oneself, a red can CC non-combatants fighting them so they can attempt to CC and disengage instead of committing to the kill, mind you getting away is not guaranteed since the corrupted players could be CCed as well. Thatd be a reasonable argument on your part. But as it currently is, a corrupted player is doomed the second they get spotted by anyone willing to attack them. Their only options as is are to die, or to fight back and fall further into corruption. There is zero option to disengage. I really want to assume this is exaggeration, but you phrased it so specifically I'm not sure. There's certainly a meaningful chance that they will be pursued if they attempt to escape, but how can we assume that they can't escape at all? It's not like stealth/movement abilities/various ways of manipulating combat scenarios with mobs all vanish. While a player doesn't automatically hit other players when using an AoE against mobs, for example, there's a meaningful chance that it goes the other way. What scenario are you seeing where a Corrupted player has none of their escape tools or strategies available? (I fully accept that, depending on their build, they might have considerably less of them available). Or is this just 'someone has spotted you and now everyone will hunt you down'?
Dolyem wrote: » "last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario.
Dolyem wrote: » The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned.
Dolyem wrote: » All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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. "Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP." This is what I was referring to as an opinion. Corruption, as is, will deter open world PvP. Thats what corruption is effecting. Its goal is to deter griefing, not open world PvP engagement. You constantly directing PvP players to PvP events makes it seem like you dont want any open world PvP at all. Sure, an opinion based in observable facts. If you're fighting over things that do not matter, the crumbs of resources in common areas that people regularly will not defend to the point of dying green and taking extra penalties, then that is bottom of the barrel. It has the lowest impact of any kind of PvP. Contested valuable spots in open sea or other lawless zones (should land based ones make itto launch), world events with rare drops and irregular spawn rates, or dungeons all open to PvP are what the open world PvP is here for. It's for making an impact on the world, the pointless 1v1 scuffling over crumbs of resources is not meaningful PvP. "just give up if you are corrupted" is a wild suggestion, but as is, thats pretty much all one will likely be able to do once engaged. Even without gaining corruption for defending oneself, every corrupted player with even a single kill is incentivized to be very careful while they work it off due to the death penalties. If you're too scared to fight back and eat more corruption, too foolish to have planned an escape route, and too haughty to have group mates around, then yes, minimize your losses instead of whining about how unfair it is that you can be attacked. I honestly want to know how I am suggesting corrupted players be coddled with all of the death penalties they recieve, along with the disadvantages that defending themselves against a non-combatant already gives. This is purely a suggestion based on the intent of the system. Dont deter PvP, focus on the actual griefing. I get it, if you get killed once randomly, you think whoever did that is the worst person in the world even if you never see them again so you think they should burn in hell. The only one equating open world meaningful PvP in the open world to ganking is you. If you and your group fight over things that matter, you will rarely ever be dealing with Corruption. If you're lone-wolf killing greens in populated areas, you're an idiot, first off, and secondly, it's exactly the sort of behavior that's trying to be avoided. Like Lud already said, reds should not be the ones getting to decide how severe their penalties become, which is all your suggestion would do. Use your brain, disengage, and run if you are so stubbornly against having a group to do your open world PvP with. All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant. Now if you argue that instead of avoiding corruption when defending oneself, a red can CC non-combatants fighting them so they can attempt to CC and disengage instead of committing to the kill, mind you getting away is not guaranteed since the corrupted players could be CCed as well. Thatd be a reasonable argument on your part. But as it currently is, a corrupted player is doomed the second they get spotted by anyone willing to attack them. Their only options as is are to die, or to fight back and fall further into corruption. There is zero option to disengage. And I am defining PKs by Stevens own definition. The ONLY time you are griefing (in PvP*), is when PKing to negatively affect another players gameplay. YOUR definition of griefing is just a gank in general.
Sathrago wrote: » I was just thinking about this, and honestly, there needs to be a bit of nuance here. I'm wondering if it might be better for the game if green players flag purple when they initiate an attack on a red player, but if they're attacked first, they can fight back without going purple. What this does is loosen up the restrictions on red players a bit and discourages greens from turning around to kill reds just because a swarm of other players rolled by. If you don’t want to PvP, then you can’t be the one making the first move. You already have CC immunity, so having the risk of losing that in order to attack reds on sight seems like a better system. The reason I suggest this is that I don’t like the idea that, to clear someone from a farming spot, you might go red, and then an army of greens throws themselves at you, either killing you or increasing your corruption, when your only aggression was against the initial party. If Steven wants players to have a way to express their frustration or contend with others, he needs to avoid forcing us to dig a hole to our doom every time we engage with it. Anyway, what do y’all think? Stupid? (It's only alpha, hurr durr?) Let me know regardless. I’ll be fishing in Throne and chillin’.
Sathrago wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption yes, but how do you think someone can run from a green thats cc immune? I personally dont like it when protected players roam around using that protection as a weapon to further punish someone whos already going to lose a good amount of stuff when they die. If the red defends themselves they lose even more. It would be less of an issue if greens were not cc immune. Then you could pull some tricks to try and get away but as it stands if you happen to be the unlucky guy in your group to get a last hit you become the juicy piece of meat to everyone within that area. This change is for those kinds of players just trying to contend for a farming spot or drive someone off and happen to go red. Since there is no option to choose non-lethal attacks the least that could be done is making greens flag as purple if they initiate against a red.
Caeryl wrote: » Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption
Pendragxn wrote: » I have an idea why don’t we just make the whole map a lawless zone? Hear me out this would solve all problems and we can all have one massive battle royale and I also think we should make it full loot
Slipree wrote: » Forgive my ignorance, but how DOES the flagging system work? Is there a link? I didn’t find one but didn’t search very hard yet. I assumed it would work the same in most pvp games where the aggressor flags, and you don’t suffer for defending oneself?
Slipree wrote: » So you are penalized for defending yourself if you are red? It doesn’t pvp flag the aggressor? That’s….kind of lame. Especially since I see you say the green (I assume the traditional blue) is cc immune? Why would anyone ever be cc immune? That seems like bad design for a pvp focused game imo. I’m brand new here though so I don’t know the details and only going off what you guys are saying.
Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption yes, but how do you think someone can run from a green thats cc immune? I personally dont like it when protected players roam around using that protection as a weapon to further punish someone whos already going to lose a good amount of stuff when they die. If the red defends themselves they lose even more. It would be less of an issue if greens were not cc immune. Then you could pull some tricks to try and get away but as it stands if you happen to be the unlucky guy in your group to get a last hit you become the juicy piece of meat to everyone within that area. This change is for those kinds of players just trying to contend for a farming spot or drive someone off and happen to go red. Since there is no option to choose non-lethal attacks the least that could be done is making greens flag as purple if they initiate against a red. So you are penalized for defending yourself if you are red? It doesn’t pvp flag the aggressor? That’s….kind of lame. Especially since I see you say the green (I assume the traditional blue) is cc immune? Why would anyone ever be cc immune? That seems like bad design for a pvp focused game imo. I’m brand new here though so I don’t know the details and only going off what you guys are saying.
Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » "last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario. We just have too differing of an opinion on what Reds are. To me - they're the weakest player in the game, who deserve what they get. Their victims didn't fight back, so the Red shouldn't be able to fight back either. The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done. Dolyem wrote: » The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned. And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain. As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption. This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor. If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get". And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place.
Otr wrote: » That can happen only if corruption is balanced so that you start feeling the pain after you killed 100 greens or so.
Ludullu wrote: » Otr wrote: » That can happen only if corruption is balanced so that you start feeling the pain after you killed 100 greens or so. Sure, in the game with several sources of direct pvp (wars, EotS, open seas) and Steven desire to prevent repeated PKing (which he considers griefing) we'll somehow have hundreds of PKs on our chars That will definitely happen
Otr wrote: » Then the PvP part is how to annoy the others to make them leave.
