Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » "PKers should be able to not even be a PKer before their victim reaches them" Not sure what you're even saying here. Are you saying PKers suddenly stop becoming PKers before the person they are killing comes to them? No idea what this means. As I keep repeating over and over, I want corruption balancing to be tuned in such a way that a PKer with < 3 PKC (PK count) should be able to remove their corruption before their victim can come back to the same spot after respawning (with the 3rd PKC being reaaal close in timing), given that the PKer is earning top XP for their lvl. Imo meaningful PKing is when someone is trying to remove competition from a spot (be it a mob one, a boss one or a gathering one). Valuable mobs and bosses (and imo gathering stuff as well) would mostly exist deep in the dungeons. And I'd prefer if respawn locations were, at the very least, outside of the dungeon, if not even further out. This means that the victim would need to go back to the depth of the dungeon, if they wanted to enact revenge. This would also mean that any BH, that's not already deep in the dungeon, would also have limited time to react to someone with low PKC being Red. And considering that deep dungeon pve will be the hardest in the game, any other Green players in the vicinity of the Red would be preoccupied with their own content and might not have the time to react to a chat shout of "omg, there's a PKer in this room of the dungeon". In other words, someone with low PKC should be able to get rid of their corruption right before or right at the point of their victim coming back to the same spot, as long as this PKer is strong enough to do so (which they might not be, cause they had to PK instead of just outfarming the victim). Dolyem wrote: » Where did I say people shouldn't ever gain more corruption once they're red? Players should absolutely gain more corruption for killing players who don't fight back. I have only ever argued that when players are actively fighting eachother, it makes no sense to punish PvP that wouldn't be defined as potentially griefing. You're not griefing a green player who is attacking you by defending yourself against them. I knew I should've been more detailed there, but I was too lazy. What I meant is "no more corruption for those who don't attack a passive green again". Cause, again, I've been talking about meaningful PKers who were simply removing competitors from the premises, so unless they're dumb enough to attack the same dude again, while that dude doesn't fight back AGAIN - the PKer will never gain more corruption while they're Red, even if they're attacked by countless greens. To me, that's a huge problem, because, as I've said before, this PKer could be the strongest player on their server, and now literally no one would be able to punish them, because they're free to just keep fighting back. The same, but to a worse degree, would apply to whole parties and guilds of PKers. They can go around genociding people, while no one can do anything to them, because when someone tries to attack them - the PKers won't get more corruption if they defend themselves. This would then require higher tuning of corruption-based stat dampening, in order to prevent the very thing I'm worried about. Which would then impact the players YOU want to help. Those who don't grief, but do PK relatively often, cause they're competing for stuff. And now you'd have a slow corruption removal balance, coupled with faster stat dampening, which simply means that the players you want to help with your suggestion are now doubly punished, cause they can't fight back due to stat dampening and they also can't remove corruption fast enough, so they get killed way easier. In other words, I believe that your suggestion would lead to a worse life for meaningful PKers. Dolyem wrote: » The difference between us is you want all encompassing severe punishment, regardless of if it's griefing or not when PKing. I am advocating for focusing griefing specifically(the entire point of the system), which in turn regulates PKing, while not damning players for doing so while not actually griefing. Yes, I want that severe punishment for the weak dumbasses that couldn't plan their PK correctly and/or were too weak to cleanse it in time. You keep saying that the only purpose of the corruption system is to curb griefing, but Steven's own design doesn't agree with that statement, cause otherwise it would be laxer than L2's balancing. And yet we have slower corruption clrearing AND non-purpling Greens. Which means that Steven himself doesn't want to see all that much PKing in Ashes, even outside of griefing situations. And as I said before, we both agree that there should be more meaningful PKing. I simply don't believe that your suggestion would bring that about in the best way in the end. Dolyem wrote: » You can just as easily.apply your logic to "there isn't just magically going to be hordes of PKers" so I don't see your point. You plan accordingly so things don't turn to garbage I'm not sure I understood this point correctly. I do in fact expect there to not be hordes of PKers, exactly because of how the corruption is balanced right now. And even the example of my preference of "1% of CCUs are PKers" would be mostly concentrated in high value spots, because people would only be PKing others for top content, while all the casuals and shit outside of dungeons get to live their happy little lives, outside of situations where some dick tries to PK until they destroy their character. And so, while 100 people might seem like a super small amount of PKers, those 100 people would be concentrated in 30-50 top lvl dungeons. And they'd only exist when the other side of the conflict didn't fight back, which I believe would be a fairly rare occurence, so the overal PKing would be pretty much against all the people who think they can lose more mats by "punishing" their attacker, WHILE farming the best possible content at their lvl. And if my suggestion of faster clearing was implemented, that kind of approach by the Green player would see them lose their mats more often than not, while not getting anything in return for that loss. And after the first 1-2 PKs for the same spot, the 2 sides would be entering the more dangerous territory of "can I really cleanse my corruption before I get punished" or should I not risk it and try some other approach. Again, all of this is taken from my personal experience with different balancings of L2's corruption system and my preference from said experience. And based on all of that, I do believe that my suggestion would be quite close to a good and "fair" balance of "PKing is viable, if you have no other way forward, but it's only viable a few times before it gets too risky". And just to keep this in the broader context of what my prefered vision is - PKC reduction cost would be real high as well, so people who can only win competitions through PKing would still be fucked over in the long run, cause imo the weak deserve that Dolyem wrote: » I was referring to the things that PvP players will do Alternatively to just a simple PK, which would equate to far worse gameplay to avoid a too high risk system. And I already said that I disagree with it being a worse kind of gameplay. To me, pvp interactions are about players' wills. If someone can't stand sharing one spot and they feel like they HAVE TO PK the other player - that's a weak-willed person. If they don't have any friends to call up and simply outfarm the competitor - that's a socially weak player (and in mmos I consider those weak-willed, because they couldn't socialize with others). If after PKing they're afraid of the consequences - they're weak-willed. And the same applies to the "pvper" who refuses to flag up - they are weak-willed. And as for the non-PKing methods of removing a competitor - they all exist on the scale of power. Training mobs onto someone who you kept at <=25% hp would be real damn close to the PKing side and would be weak as fuck. I spit on those players. Outfarming the location solo and denying your opponent's rewards to the point that the opponent just leaves, I personally consider the strongest. And obviously there's the friendship route of "let's party up and do this together". That method would be the socially strongest, cause it often leads to long-lasting relations. But, to me, all of those methods are still better than just PKing, because PKing directly impacts both competitors in the worst way. And imo, the worst way should have the worst results, especially for the initiator of said way. Dolyem wrote: » If i use your logic of, players won't be around eachother enough to make PKing a common occurence, what would you say? I explained my logic in a better way above, so this doesn't really apply to what I said about Steven's potential change in direction. Players will inevitably congregate in certain locations. And if people know that the stronger players get to go unpunished for their PKing - they'll be less willing to even interact with those players. And I've already explained here what I believe would happen if those unpinished players would get counterbalanced by Intrepid, within your suggestion. Dolyem wrote: » And besides, im not advocating for rampant PKing, only to not make the risks of corruption so high that it prevents it from ever happening except on the rarest of occasions, and pushing players to take even worse routes to achieve the same goal. And this is where we disagree, because I personally want PKing to be the last resort action that does only happen in rarest of occasions. And I mainly want this because there's gonna be countless other pvp interactions that I want to see way more than PKing. All while weakly balanced PKing would have a much broader impact across all lvls and all skill-lvl player interactions.
Dolyem wrote: » "PKers should be able to not even be a PKer before their victim reaches them" Not sure what you're even saying here. Are you saying PKers suddenly stop becoming PKers before the person they are killing comes to them? No idea what this means.
Dolyem wrote: » Where did I say people shouldn't ever gain more corruption once they're red? Players should absolutely gain more corruption for killing players who don't fight back. I have only ever argued that when players are actively fighting eachother, it makes no sense to punish PvP that wouldn't be defined as potentially griefing. You're not griefing a green player who is attacking you by defending yourself against them.
Dolyem wrote: » The difference between us is you want all encompassing severe punishment, regardless of if it's griefing or not when PKing. I am advocating for focusing griefing specifically(the entire point of the system), which in turn regulates PKing, while not damning players for doing so while not actually griefing.
Dolyem wrote: » You can just as easily.apply your logic to "there isn't just magically going to be hordes of PKers" so I don't see your point. You plan accordingly so things don't turn to garbage
Dolyem wrote: » I was referring to the things that PvP players will do Alternatively to just a simple PK, which would equate to far worse gameplay to avoid a too high risk system.
Dolyem wrote: » If i use your logic of, players won't be around eachother enough to make PKing a common occurence, what would you say?
Dolyem wrote: » And besides, im not advocating for rampant PKing, only to not make the risks of corruption so high that it prevents it from ever happening except on the rarest of occasions, and pushing players to take even worse routes to achieve the same goal.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions. It is not a supported or desired playstyle in Ashes, so this won't be the game for you if you can't accept this right off the bat. You won't be able to trade, as that evades the penalties of increased drop rates while corrupt, and you can't bank gear, as it evades the penalties of risking dropped gear while corrupt. Fight over things that matter, and things that are valuable, as you'll rarely if ever be dealing with corruption. No one said I’d be pking noobs for crumbs bud. People go red in mmo pvp all the time. It’s inescapable, unless you don’t actually pvp, or every zone is lawless. Also idk who you think you are, that you think you’re the arbiter of what game is for me, or not for me, but I will now pk you on sight if your ig name is the same. I’ll have one account dedicated red for the life of the game. Bet me. Spare us both the dramatics. You sound like a ten year old. Going red is obvious going to happen every now and then. I'm sure I'll pop up red at some point or other, but the cascade effect isn't a big scary 'I just won't PvP then'-worthy threat unless you make stupid choices and refuse to operate within a group. One red on their own is a loot piñata. A group with a red is a threat. “I just won’t pvp in a game that is centered around pvp” so what will you do while you are red? Nothing? Because anything you do WILL lead to pvp. Have you ever played a pvx mmo? No where is safe. Also I’m 45, nice try though. Hopefully your ig name will be the same. See you soon. Honestly, that's even more embarrassing for you, especially because on top of the limp threats, you apparently still don't know how to read. Oh well, keep raging at nothing. I can tell from your responses that you have that care bear stare when you’re looking at your monitor. No person who’s ever meaningfully engaged in any pvp, would be on board with not being able to defend themselves. Period. You don't have to keep proving you don't know what you're talking about. You've made it clear already that you don't actually read the posts of people you're raging at. Anyone can fight at any time, you're not prevented from doing so. You just have to accept that you can't be a braindead PKer in Ashes. You'll have to actually strategize a little bit to avoid this cascade you're so scared of. The solution isn't to let PKers be the sole determinants of the depths of their consequences. It defeats the purpose of the Corrupted state being a penalty. It's meant to change how you approach combat other players. People fighting over WBs aren't going to be chronically red because everyone there is fighting, and healing and buffs on combatants flag players combatants as well. A couple people in a ten man group being red isn't gonna impact the group's efficiency by much unless those players have a massive PK history already that would snowball the effects of the Corrupted state. Corruption is meant to deter griefing. It's not meant to deter you from killing other players within reason. And make no mistake, there are plenty of good gameplay reasons to kill other players, and not just in organized events. Yeah, I've mentioned some already within this very thread. Doesn't change the fact that going red isn't horrifying or 'too punishing' just because you'll have to alter your playstyle for a short while after if you're going it solo. If you're in a group, it's a non-issue. And players should absolutely be able to regulate their corruption based on who they choose to kill Hard disagree that they should be given a hardcoded get out of jail free condition. They are already to regulate their corruption by disengaging from solo fighting with greens. In group v group, people would have an extremely hard time trying to avoid flagging if they have even a couple AoE spells. It's far more unhealthy to grant any self-defense clause to a Corrupted player, because then they're encouraged and enabled to taunt and 'PvE grief' other players into attacking them first to absolve them of consequence. Corruption as a solo player means it's time to pull back and cleanse it. Corruption within a group is sporadic as it only hits the killer rather than the whole group, and it's very easy to force flags while purple. Thus far we only have a setting to prevent flagging up from hitting greens with AoE, (edit: turns out they did indeed add a toggle for ally AoEs, granted I can't imagine any sane player turning buffs off for combatants) so generally it only takes one AoE charge to get an enemy group flagged up purple against yours provided you didn't all somehow go red at once (which would be a failure in planning and focus and thus, rightly punished)
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions. It is not a supported or desired playstyle in Ashes, so this won't be the game for you if you can't accept this right off the bat. You won't be able to trade, as that evades the penalties of increased drop rates while corrupt, and you can't bank gear, as it evades the penalties of risking dropped gear while corrupt. Fight over things that matter, and things that are valuable, as you'll rarely if ever be dealing with corruption. No one said I’d be pking noobs for crumbs bud. People go red in mmo pvp all the time. It’s inescapable, unless you don’t actually pvp, or every zone is lawless. Also idk who you think you are, that you think you’re the arbiter of what game is for me, or not for me, but I will now pk you on sight if your ig name is the same. I’ll have one account dedicated red for the life of the game. Bet me. Spare us both the dramatics. You sound like a ten year old. Going red is obvious going to happen every now and then. I'm sure I'll pop up red at some point or other, but the cascade effect isn't a big scary 'I just won't PvP then'-worthy threat unless you make stupid choices and refuse to operate within a group. One red on their own is a loot piñata. A group with a red is a threat. “I just won’t pvp in a game that is centered around pvp” so what will you do while you are red? Nothing? Because anything you do WILL lead to pvp. Have you ever played a pvx mmo? No where is safe. Also I’m 45, nice try though. Hopefully your ig name will be the same. See you soon. Honestly, that's even more embarrassing for you, especially because on top of the limp threats, you apparently still don't know how to read. Oh well, keep raging at nothing. I can tell from your responses that you have that care bear stare when you’re looking at your monitor. No person who’s ever meaningfully engaged in any pvp, would be on board with not being able to defend themselves. Period. You don't have to keep proving you don't know what you're talking about. You've made it clear already that you don't actually read the posts of people you're raging at. Anyone can fight at any time, you're not prevented from doing so. You just have to accept that you can't be a braindead PKer in Ashes. You'll have to actually strategize a little bit to avoid this cascade you're so scared of. The solution isn't to let PKers be the sole determinants of the depths of their consequences. It defeats the purpose of the Corrupted state being a penalty. It's meant to change how you approach combat other players. People fighting over WBs aren't going to be chronically red because everyone there is fighting, and healing and buffs on combatants flag players combatants as well. A couple people in a ten man group being red isn't gonna impact the group's efficiency by much unless those players have a massive PK history already that would snowball the effects of the Corrupted state. Corruption is meant to deter griefing. It's not meant to deter you from killing other players within reason. And make no mistake, there are plenty of good gameplay reasons to kill other players, and not just in organized events.
Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions. It is not a supported or desired playstyle in Ashes, so this won't be the game for you if you can't accept this right off the bat. You won't be able to trade, as that evades the penalties of increased drop rates while corrupt, and you can't bank gear, as it evades the penalties of risking dropped gear while corrupt. Fight over things that matter, and things that are valuable, as you'll rarely if ever be dealing with corruption. No one said I’d be pking noobs for crumbs bud. People go red in mmo pvp all the time. It’s inescapable, unless you don’t actually pvp, or every zone is lawless. Also idk who you think you are, that you think you’re the arbiter of what game is for me, or not for me, but I will now pk you on sight if your ig name is the same. I’ll have one account dedicated red for the life of the game. Bet me. Spare us both the dramatics. You sound like a ten year old. Going red is obvious going to happen every now and then. I'm sure I'll pop up red at some point or other, but the cascade effect isn't a big scary 'I just won't PvP then'-worthy threat unless you make stupid choices and refuse to operate within a group. One red on their own is a loot piñata. A group with a red is a threat. “I just won’t pvp in a game that is centered around pvp” so what will you do while you are red? Nothing? Because anything you do WILL lead to pvp. Have you ever played a pvx mmo? No where is safe. Also I’m 45, nice try though. Hopefully your ig name will be the same. See you soon. Honestly, that's even more embarrassing for you, especially because on top of the limp threats, you apparently still don't know how to read. Oh well, keep raging at nothing. I can tell from your responses that you have that care bear stare when you’re looking at your monitor. No person who’s ever meaningfully engaged in any pvp, would be on board with not being able to defend themselves. Period. You don't have to keep proving you don't know what you're talking about. You've made it clear already that you don't actually read the posts of people you're raging at. Anyone can fight at any time, you're not prevented from doing so. You just have to accept that you can't be a braindead PKer in Ashes. You'll have to actually strategize a little bit to avoid this cascade you're so scared of. The solution isn't to let PKers be the sole determinants of the depths of their consequences. It defeats the purpose of the Corrupted state being a penalty. It's meant to change how you approach combat other players. People fighting over WBs aren't going to be chronically red because everyone there is fighting, and healing and buffs on combatants flag players combatants as well. A couple people in a ten man group being red isn't gonna impact the group's efficiency by much unless those players have a massive PK history already that would snowball the effects of the Corrupted state.
Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions. It is not a supported or desired playstyle in Ashes, so this won't be the game for you if you can't accept this right off the bat. You won't be able to trade, as that evades the penalties of increased drop rates while corrupt, and you can't bank gear, as it evades the penalties of risking dropped gear while corrupt. Fight over things that matter, and things that are valuable, as you'll rarely if ever be dealing with corruption. No one said I’d be pking noobs for crumbs bud. People go red in mmo pvp all the time. It’s inescapable, unless you don’t actually pvp, or every zone is lawless. Also idk who you think you are, that you think you’re the arbiter of what game is for me, or not for me, but I will now pk you on sight if your ig name is the same. I’ll have one account dedicated red for the life of the game. Bet me. Spare us both the dramatics. You sound like a ten year old. Going red is obvious going to happen every now and then. I'm sure I'll pop up red at some point or other, but the cascade effect isn't a big scary 'I just won't PvP then'-worthy threat unless you make stupid choices and refuse to operate within a group. One red on their own is a loot piñata. A group with a red is a threat. “I just won’t pvp in a game that is centered around pvp” so what will you do while you are red? Nothing? Because anything you do WILL lead to pvp. Have you ever played a pvx mmo? No where is safe. Also I’m 45, nice try though. Hopefully your ig name will be the same. See you soon. Honestly, that's even more embarrassing for you, especially because on top of the limp threats, you apparently still don't know how to read. Oh well, keep raging at nothing. I can tell from your responses that you have that care bear stare when you’re looking at your monitor. No person who’s ever meaningfully engaged in any pvp, would be on board with not being able to defend themselves. Period.
Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions. It is not a supported or desired playstyle in Ashes, so this won't be the game for you if you can't accept this right off the bat. You won't be able to trade, as that evades the penalties of increased drop rates while corrupt, and you can't bank gear, as it evades the penalties of risking dropped gear while corrupt. Fight over things that matter, and things that are valuable, as you'll rarely if ever be dealing with corruption. No one said I’d be pking noobs for crumbs bud. People go red in mmo pvp all the time. It’s inescapable, unless you don’t actually pvp, or every zone is lawless. Also idk who you think you are, that you think you’re the arbiter of what game is for me, or not for me, but I will now pk you on sight if your ig name is the same. I’ll have one account dedicated red for the life of the game. Bet me. Spare us both the dramatics. You sound like a ten year old. Going red is obvious going to happen every now and then. I'm sure I'll pop up red at some point or other, but the cascade effect isn't a big scary 'I just won't PvP then'-worthy threat unless you make stupid choices and refuse to operate within a group. One red on their own is a loot piñata. A group with a red is a threat. “I just won’t pvp in a game that is centered around pvp” so what will you do while you are red? Nothing? Because anything you do WILL lead to pvp. Have you ever played a pvx mmo? No where is safe. Also I’m 45, nice try though. Hopefully your ig name will be the same. See you soon. Honestly, that's even more embarrassing for you, especially because on top of the limp threats, you apparently still don't know how to read. Oh well, keep raging at nothing.
Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions. It is not a supported or desired playstyle in Ashes, so this won't be the game for you if you can't accept this right off the bat. You won't be able to trade, as that evades the penalties of increased drop rates while corrupt, and you can't bank gear, as it evades the penalties of risking dropped gear while corrupt. Fight over things that matter, and things that are valuable, as you'll rarely if ever be dealing with corruption. No one said I’d be pking noobs for crumbs bud. People go red in mmo pvp all the time. It’s inescapable, unless you don’t actually pvp, or every zone is lawless. Also idk who you think you are, that you think you’re the arbiter of what game is for me, or not for me, but I will now pk you on sight if your ig name is the same. I’ll have one account dedicated red for the life of the game. Bet me. Spare us both the dramatics. You sound like a ten year old. Going red is obvious going to happen every now and then. I'm sure I'll pop up red at some point or other, but the cascade effect isn't a big scary 'I just won't PvP then'-worthy threat unless you make stupid choices and refuse to operate within a group. One red on their own is a loot piñata. A group with a red is a threat. “I just won’t pvp in a game that is centered around pvp” so what will you do while you are red? Nothing? Because anything you do WILL lead to pvp. Have you ever played a pvx mmo? No where is safe. Also I’m 45, nice try though. Hopefully your ig name will be the same. See you soon.
Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions. It is not a supported or desired playstyle in Ashes, so this won't be the game for you if you can't accept this right off the bat. You won't be able to trade, as that evades the penalties of increased drop rates while corrupt, and you can't bank gear, as it evades the penalties of risking dropped gear while corrupt. Fight over things that matter, and things that are valuable, as you'll rarely if ever be dealing with corruption. No one said I’d be pking noobs for crumbs bud. People go red in mmo pvp all the time. It’s inescapable, unless you don’t actually pvp, or every zone is lawless. Also idk who you think you are, that you think you’re the arbiter of what game is for me, or not for me, but I will now pk you on sight if your ig name is the same. I’ll have one account dedicated red for the life of the game. Bet me. Spare us both the dramatics. You sound like a ten year old. Going red is obvious going to happen every now and then. I'm sure I'll pop up red at some point or other, but the cascade effect isn't a big scary 'I just won't PvP then'-worthy threat unless you make stupid choices and refuse to operate within a group. One red on their own is a loot piñata. A group with a red is a threat.
Slipree wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions. It is not a supported or desired playstyle in Ashes, so this won't be the game for you if you can't accept this right off the bat. You won't be able to trade, as that evades the penalties of increased drop rates while corrupt, and you can't bank gear, as it evades the penalties of risking dropped gear while corrupt. Fight over things that matter, and things that are valuable, as you'll rarely if ever be dealing with corruption. No one said I’d be pking noobs for crumbs bud. People go red in mmo pvp all the time. It’s inescapable, unless you don’t actually pvp, or every zone is lawless. Also idk who you think you are, that you think you’re the arbiter of what game is for me, or not for me, but I will now pk you on sight if your ig name is the same. I’ll have one account dedicated red for the life of the game. Bet me.
Caeryl wrote: » Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions. It is not a supported or desired playstyle in Ashes, so this won't be the game for you if you can't accept this right off the bat. You won't be able to trade, as that evades the penalties of increased drop rates while corrupt, and you can't bank gear, as it evades the penalties of risking dropped gear while corrupt. Fight over things that matter, and things that are valuable, as you'll rarely if ever be dealing with corruption.
Slipree wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid. Yea that’s dumb. In every pvp game I’ve ever played, regardless of your color/status, if someone attacks you they flag grey(or in this case purple) to you. Being red should be hard, but it shouldn’t be impossible. It is a playstyle, and they should have their own towns/banks, if only a few. I spent most of my time in uo red, and I never griefed, or ganked players that couldn’t fight back. I just lived in bucs den and pvpd all day. Darkfall was similar, but also race based, so as I was an altar, all other races were already red to me. Sort of like built in factions.
Sathrago wrote: » 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. normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards. The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid.
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.
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
And players should absolutely be able to regulate their corruption based on who they choose to kill
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Also, to be clear corruption does also exist to deter PK in general. From the wiki, quoting Steven himself You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif I don't find the penalties so steep that it would stop me from fighting over contested areas or PKing someone with something I wanted to nab from them, and I'm not even a die hard PvPer. Die hard PvPers looking for a challenge and prepared to adapt their play style around corruption or lackthereof sure won't be scared off by it. I will be looking for ways to work around the system to deal with problem players who refuse to fight back. Whether that be training mobs, gathering their resources in front of them repeatedly, stealing mobs, etc. I dont want to resort to griefing via PvE, but if thats the route I and others are pushed towards due to the detrimental effect of corruption regardless of the amount of PKs, so be it. All of those things have exponentially less risk than attacking or killing the player as it currently is designed, and these are indeed theoretical work arounds of course.
Caeryl wrote: » Also, to be clear corruption does also exist to deter PK in general. From the wiki, quoting Steven himself You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif I don't find the penalties so steep that it would stop me from fighting over contested areas or PKing someone with something I wanted to nab from them, and I'm not even a die hard PvPer. Die hard PvPers looking for a challenge and prepared to adapt their play style around corruption or lackthereof sure won't be scared off by it.
You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Also, to be clear corruption does also exist to deter PK in general. From the wiki, quoting Steven himself You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif I don't find the penalties so steep that it would stop me from fighting over contested areas or PKing someone with something I wanted to nab from them, and I'm not even a die hard PvPer. Die hard PvPers looking for a challenge and prepared to adapt their play style around corruption or lackthereof sure won't be scared off by it. I will be looking for ways to work around the system to deal with problem players who refuse to fight back. Whether that be training mobs, gathering their resources in front of them repeatedly, stealing mobs, etc. I dont want to resort to griefing via PvE, but if thats the route I and others are pushed towards due to the detrimental effect of corruption regardless of the amount of PKs, so be it. All of those things have exponentially less risk than attacking or killing the player as it currently is designed, and these are indeed theoretical work arounds of course. Those things aren't griefing by any reasonable person's metric. It's not possible to 'steal' a resource except through PvP (PK or caravans or post-node sieges), and likewise it's not possible to 'steal' mobs. That's a fundamentally flawed and entitled mindset. If you can outpace a player to resource nodes, if you can successfully claim looting rights on mobs they're fighting, and if you can push them out without PK, why in the world did you resort to PK in the first place and take on corruption?
Sathrago wrote: » So if i train a bunch of mobs on you forcing you to run away and take the resources you were about to grab, fair play? You think thats a good thing for the game for that sort of player to go unpunished? This is the biggest and most frequent form of pve griefing that happens in slow grindy games like this. Everquest, Ultima online, DaoC. When combat encounters cost actual downtime and the world is dangerous, trains will be worse than any random dude attacking you.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Also, to be clear corruption does also exist to deter PK in general. From the wiki, quoting Steven himself You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif I don't find the penalties so steep that it would stop me from fighting over contested areas or PKing someone with something I wanted to nab from them, and I'm not even a die hard PvPer. Die hard PvPers looking for a challenge and prepared to adapt their play style around corruption or lackthereof sure won't be scared off by it. I will be looking for ways to work around the system to deal with problem players who refuse to fight back. Whether that be training mobs, gathering their resources in front of them repeatedly, stealing mobs, etc. I dont want to resort to griefing via PvE, but if thats the route I and others are pushed towards due to the detrimental effect of corruption regardless of the amount of PKs, so be it. All of those things have exponentially less risk than attacking or killing the player as it currently is designed, and these are indeed theoretical work arounds of course. Those things aren't griefing by any reasonable person's metric. It's not possible to 'steal' a resource except through PvP (PK or caravans or post-node sieges), and likewise it's not possible to 'steal' mobs. That's a fundamentally flawed and entitled mindset. If you can outpace a player to resource nodes, if you can successfully claim looting rights on mobs they're fighting, and if you can push them out without PK, why in the world did you resort to PK in the first place and take on corruption? Youre fine with harassing players as long as PKing is deterred at all costs. Got it. Hypocritical, but got it. My guess is you'd advocate for toggling PvP on and off as opposed to even allowing for players to openly attack other players.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Also, to be clear corruption does also exist to deter PK in general. From the wiki, quoting Steven himself You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif I don't find the penalties so steep that it would stop me from fighting over contested areas or PKing someone with something I wanted to nab from them, and I'm not even a die hard PvPer. Die hard PvPers looking for a challenge and prepared to adapt their play style around corruption or lackthereof sure won't be scared off by it. I will be looking for ways to work around the system to deal with problem players who refuse to fight back. Whether that be training mobs, gathering their resources in front of them repeatedly, stealing mobs, etc. I dont want to resort to griefing via PvE, but if thats the route I and others are pushed towards due to the detrimental effect of corruption regardless of the amount of PKs, so be it. All of those things have exponentially less risk than attacking or killing the player as it currently is designed, and these are indeed theoretical work arounds of course. Those things aren't griefing by any reasonable person's metric. It's not possible to 'steal' a resource except through PvP (PK or caravans or post-node sieges), and likewise it's not possible to 'steal' mobs. That's a fundamentally flawed and entitled mindset. If you can outpace a player to resource nodes, if you can successfully claim looting rights on mobs they're fighting, and if you can push them out without PK, why in the world did you resort to PK in the first place and take on corruption? Youre fine with harassing players as long as PKing is deterred at all costs. Got it. Hypocritical, but got it. My guess is you'd advocate for toggling PvP on and off as opposed to even allowing for players to openly attack other players. It's up there with your other stupid baseless guesses about how PvP will function in the open world, certainly, and wrong. And no, since you need it said again, winning a competition over resources isn't harassment. If it was, then this entire game is harassment. Guild and node wars exist expressly to harass and attack enemies in those factions/alliances freely. If they can't beat you out in pacing, then they can try to kill you to make you leave. Just the same as you wanted to do because they 'stole' your spot and 'stole' your resources.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Also, to be clear corruption does also exist to deter PK in general. From the wiki, quoting Steven himself You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif I don't find the penalties so steep that it would stop me from fighting over contested areas or PKing someone with something I wanted to nab from them, and I'm not even a die hard PvPer. Die hard PvPers looking for a challenge and prepared to adapt their play style around corruption or lackthereof sure won't be scared off by it. I will be looking for ways to work around the system to deal with problem players who refuse to fight back. Whether that be training mobs, gathering their resources in front of them repeatedly, stealing mobs, etc. I dont want to resort to griefing via PvE, but if thats the route I and others are pushed towards due to the detrimental effect of corruption regardless of the amount of PKs, so be it. All of those things have exponentially less risk than attacking or killing the player as it currently is designed, and these are indeed theoretical work arounds of course. Those things aren't griefing by any reasonable person's metric. It's not possible to 'steal' a resource except through PvP (PK or caravans or post-node sieges), and likewise it's not possible to 'steal' mobs. That's a fundamentally flawed and entitled mindset. If you can outpace a player to resource nodes, if you can successfully claim looting rights on mobs they're fighting, and if you can push them out without PK, why in the world did you resort to PK in the first place and take on corruption? Youre fine with harassing players as long as PKing is deterred at all costs. Got it. Hypocritical, but got it. My guess is you'd advocate for toggling PvP on and off as opposed to even allowing for players to openly attack other players. It's up there with your other stupid baseless guesses about how PvP will function in the open world, certainly, and wrong. And no, since you need it said again, winning a competition over resources isn't harassment. If it was, then this entire game is harassment. Guild and node wars exist expressly to harass and attack enemies in those factions/alliances freely. If they can't beat you out in pacing, then they can try to kill you to make you leave. Just the same as you wanted to do because they 'stole' your spot and 'stole' your resources. Purposely following other players to interfere with their gameplay via PVE methods isn't harassment. Got it. You're a bright little crayon.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Also, to be clear corruption does also exist to deter PK in general. From the wiki, quoting Steven himself You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif I don't find the penalties so steep that it would stop me from fighting over contested areas or PKing someone with something I wanted to nab from them, and I'm not even a die hard PvPer. Die hard PvPers looking for a challenge and prepared to adapt their play style around corruption or lackthereof sure won't be scared off by it. I will be looking for ways to work around the system to deal with problem players who refuse to fight back. Whether that be training mobs, gathering their resources in front of them repeatedly, stealing mobs, etc. I dont want to resort to griefing via PvE, but if thats the route I and others are pushed towards due to the detrimental effect of corruption regardless of the amount of PKs, so be it. All of those things have exponentially less risk than attacking or killing the player as it currently is designed, and these are indeed theoretical work arounds of course. Those things aren't griefing by any reasonable person's metric. It's not possible to 'steal' a resource except through PvP (PK or caravans or post-node sieges), and likewise it's not possible to 'steal' mobs. That's a fundamentally flawed and entitled mindset. If you can outpace a player to resource nodes, if you can successfully claim looting rights on mobs they're fighting, and if you can push them out without PK, why in the world did you resort to PK in the first place and take on corruption? Youre fine with harassing players as long as PKing is deterred at all costs. Got it. Hypocritical, but got it. My guess is you'd advocate for toggling PvP on and off as opposed to even allowing for players to openly attack other players. It's up there with your other stupid baseless guesses about how PvP will function in the open world, certainly, and wrong. And no, since you need it said again, winning a competition over resources isn't harassment. If it was, then this entire game is harassment. Guild and node wars exist expressly to harass and attack enemies in those factions/alliances freely. If they can't beat you out in pacing, then they can try to kill you to make you leave. Just the same as you wanted to do because they 'stole' your spot and 'stole' your resources. Purposely following other players to interfere with their gameplay via PVE methods isn't harassment. Got it. You're a bright little crayon. As I said, if winning a competition over resources is harassment, so are guild wars, so are node wars, so is driving everyone away from a World Boss, so is attacking caravans. This entire game is built up around heavy friction points between players through systems that allow them to screw each other over and deny progress. If a guild lead decides that they have beef with this one particular trader and make sure to attack every single one of their caravans. It's 'harassment' but it's entirely within the scope of expected and encouraged behavior. If you really think it's harassment because someone is beating you from resource to resource, outdoing your damage on mobs you want to farm, then by all means report them and see what a GM does about it. Edit: Good lord it's so damn funny how this boils down to 'Winning the competition over resources without PK is PvE griefing :,( '
Dolyem wrote: » If your logic is "if you beat another player to or at something, it's fair game", then why are you against players killing(beating) other players fair and square to do the same thing, but in one case your argue players shouldn't be punished for it, but in the case involving PKs seeking the same exact goal you argue players should be severely punished for it?
Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » If your logic is "if you beat another player to or at something, it's fair game", then why are you against players killing(beating) other players fair and square to do the same thing, but in one case your argue players shouldn't be punished for it, but in the case involving PKs seeking the same exact goal you argue players should be severely punished for it? How is hitting a completely passive target in any way skillful, as compared to the ability to collect enough mobs to create a danger to your target, bring those mobs to the target w/o dying yourself and then managing to change those mobs' aggro onto said target? And any other way of competition is even more skillful, if your goal is to completely overwhelm the opponent.
Dolyem wrote: » If a player simply stops gathering due to another player beating them to the node over and over I don't see a difference.
Dolyem wrote: » The only time it becomes griefing is when you could consider it actively trying to ruin that players gaming experience. Only way you could really track that though is number of kills in a short amount of time.
Ludullu wrote: » Hell, I'll even try getting Fantm to ask this on stream rn.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Also, to be clear corruption does also exist to deter PK in general. From the wiki, quoting Steven himself You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif I don't find the penalties so steep that it would stop me from fighting over contested areas or PKing someone with something I wanted to nab from them, and I'm not even a die hard PvPer. Die hard PvPers looking for a challenge and prepared to adapt their play style around corruption or lackthereof sure won't be scared off by it. I will be looking for ways to work around the system to deal with problem players who refuse to fight back. Whether that be training mobs, gathering their resources in front of them repeatedly, stealing mobs, etc. I dont want to resort to griefing via PvE, but if thats the route I and others are pushed towards due to the detrimental effect of corruption regardless of the amount of PKs, so be it. All of those things have exponentially less risk than attacking or killing the player as it currently is designed, and these are indeed theoretical work arounds of course. Those things aren't griefing by any reasonable person's metric. It's not possible to 'steal' a resource except through PvP (PK or caravans or post-node sieges), and likewise it's not possible to 'steal' mobs. That's a fundamentally flawed and entitled mindset. If you can outpace a player to resource nodes, if you can successfully claim looting rights on mobs they're fighting, and if you can push them out without PK, why in the world did you resort to PK in the first place and take on corruption? Youre fine with harassing players as long as PKing is deterred at all costs. Got it. Hypocritical, but got it. My guess is you'd advocate for toggling PvP on and off as opposed to even allowing for players to openly attack other players. It's up there with your other stupid baseless guesses about how PvP will function in the open world, certainly, and wrong. And no, since you need it said again, winning a competition over resources isn't harassment. If it was, then this entire game is harassment. Guild and node wars exist expressly to harass and attack enemies in those factions/alliances freely. If they can't beat you out in pacing, then they can try to kill you to make you leave. Just the same as you wanted to do because they 'stole' your spot and 'stole' your resources. Purposely following other players to interfere with their gameplay via PVE methods isn't harassment. Got it. You're a bright little crayon. As I said, if winning a competition over resources is harassment, so are guild wars, so are node wars, so is driving everyone away from a World Boss, so is attacking caravans. This entire game is built up around heavy friction points between players through systems that allow them to screw each other over and deny progress. If a guild lead decides that they have beef with this one particular trader and make sure to attack every single one of their caravans. It's 'harassment' but it's entirely within the scope of expected and encouraged behavior. If you really think it's harassment because someone is beating you from resource to resource, outdoing your damage on mobs you want to farm, then by all means report them and see what a GM does about it. Edit: Good lord it's so damn funny how this boils down to 'Winning the competition over resources without PK is PvE griefing :,( ' Perfect! I was hoping you'd prove my point here. The only case those things are griefing is when the player doing those things is with the intent to ruin another players gameplay, not if the player is trying to advance themselves within the game. If your logic is "if you beat another player to or at something, it's fair game", then why are you against players killing(beating) other players fair and square to do the same thing, but in one case your argue players shouldn't be punished for it, but in the case involving PKs seeking the same exact goal you argue players should be severely punished for it? Winning the competition with or without a PK is not griefing unless the ultimate goal of the offensive player is to ultimately ruin the other players gameplay experience. And NEITHER should be punished the same way as griefing. You are arguing for general open world PvP to be deterred, not just griefing.
Ludullu wrote: » Ludullu wrote: » Hell, I'll even try getting Fantm to ask this on stream rn. Rip, no question, cause time flies to quickly. Oh well
Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » If a player simply stops gathering due to another player beating them to the node over and over I don't see a difference. PKing them directly influences their immediate gameplay, including ~10min of farming after that death. That's the different between outmatching a competitor through skill vs just PKing them. Which brings us to a question that I don't think have been brought up in this part of the convo Dolyem wrote: » The only time it becomes griefing is when you could consider it actively trying to ruin that players gaming experience. Only way you could really track that though is number of kills in a short amount of time. You equate pve-based actions to PKing, because they achieve the same goal. What, in your opinion, would be "griefing actions" in pve? As in, when would you try pinging a GM to complain about griefing? And how would you explain to them the method of griefing? If your competitor was just outfarming you - is that griefing? If he was training mobs onto you every time you came back to the same location - is that griefing? And how should Intrepid track that kind of griefing then? Because, as I see it, Steven's language kinda implies that PKing CAN be griefing, but that's a directly trackable griefing (which even you point out in this message), while every other action would be near-impossible to properly track, if you tried telling a GM that you're being griefed. And would this not, then, be the main difference between the two approaches to competition? One is seen as a direct tool for griefing, while others haven't been even talked about in this context (unless I missed it). Hell, I'll even try getting Fantm to ask this on stream rn.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Also, to be clear corruption does also exist to deter PK in general. From the wiki, quoting Steven himself You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif I don't find the penalties so steep that it would stop me from fighting over contested areas or PKing someone with something I wanted to nab from them, and I'm not even a die hard PvPer. Die hard PvPers looking for a challenge and prepared to adapt their play style around corruption or lackthereof sure won't be scared off by it. I will be looking for ways to work around the system to deal with problem players who refuse to fight back. Whether that be training mobs, gathering their resources in front of them repeatedly, stealing mobs, etc. I dont want to resort to griefing via PvE, but if thats the route I and others are pushed towards due to the detrimental effect of corruption regardless of the amount of PKs, so be it. All of those things have exponentially less risk than attacking or killing the player as it currently is designed, and these are indeed theoretical work arounds of course. Those things aren't griefing by any reasonable person's metric. It's not possible to 'steal' a resource except through PvP (PK or caravans or post-node sieges), and likewise it's not possible to 'steal' mobs. That's a fundamentally flawed and entitled mindset. If you can outpace a player to resource nodes, if you can successfully claim looting rights on mobs they're fighting, and if you can push them out without PK, why in the world did you resort to PK in the first place and take on corruption? Youre fine with harassing players as long as PKing is deterred at all costs. Got it. Hypocritical, but got it. My guess is you'd advocate for toggling PvP on and off as opposed to even allowing for players to openly attack other players. It's up there with your other stupid baseless guesses about how PvP will function in the open world, certainly, and wrong. And no, since you need it said again, winning a competition over resources isn't harassment. If it was, then this entire game is harassment. Guild and node wars exist expressly to harass and attack enemies in those factions/alliances freely. If they can't beat you out in pacing, then they can try to kill you to make you leave. Just the same as you wanted to do because they 'stole' your spot and 'stole' your resources. Purposely following other players to interfere with their gameplay via PVE methods isn't harassment. Got it. You're a bright little crayon. As I said, if winning a competition over resources is harassment, so are guild wars, so are node wars, so is driving everyone away from a World Boss, so is attacking caravans. This entire game is built up around heavy friction points between players through systems that allow them to screw each other over and deny progress. If a guild lead decides that they have beef with this one particular trader and make sure to attack every single one of their caravans. It's 'harassment' but it's entirely within the scope of expected and encouraged behavior. If you really think it's harassment because someone is beating you from resource to resource, outdoing your damage on mobs you want to farm, then by all means report them and see what a GM does about it. Edit: Good lord it's so damn funny how this boils down to 'Winning the competition over resources without PK is PvE griefing :,( ' Perfect! I was hoping you'd prove my point here. The only case those things are griefing is when the player doing those things is with the intent to ruin another players gameplay, not if the player is trying to advance themselves within the game. If your logic is "if you beat another player to or at something, it's fair game", then why are you against players killing(beating) other players fair and square to do the same thing, but in one case your argue players shouldn't be punished for it, but in the case involving PKs seeking the same exact goal you argue players should be severely punished for it? Winning the competition with or without a PK is not griefing unless the ultimate goal of the offensive player is to ultimately ruin the other players gameplay experience. And NEITHER should be punished the same way as griefing. You are arguing for general open world PvP to be deterred, not just griefing. Those thing are never griefing lmfao. If you resort to PK over a it's because in every other aspect of completion you were worse and less skilled than the other player. All this chatter you posted about intent and goals while apparently still not understanding that neither of those are quantifiable. There is no difference between a PK for gain and a PK to grief, they're all treated the same, and when PK is the only scenario in which that competitor takes significant direct harm onto themselves, yeah obviously you should hit the attacker with corruption. Corruption is not a PvP killer like you claim if you use your brain when going red. All these doom scenarios around the solo PKer is pointless and less than relevant in an objective based group-PvX game. I could not care less about how solo players feel about open world combat. Operating in a group and fighting as a group makes most of the consequences ignorable. If you fight over valuables with someone that hasn't already been shown that you aren't capable of winning in a direct harvesting completion, they'll be purple anyway because it's objectively worse to die green than die purple. When the entire game tells you at all times to 'go purple, go purple, it's better to be purple, you'll have penalties for dying, you'll have worse penalties for dying without fighting back', then yeah obviously i don't expect PKers to be common, because I don't expect dying green to be common.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Also, to be clear corruption does also exist to deter PK in general. From the wiki, quoting Steven himself You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[27] – Steven Sharif I don't find the penalties so steep that it would stop me from fighting over contested areas or PKing someone with something I wanted to nab from them, and I'm not even a die hard PvPer. Die hard PvPers looking for a challenge and prepared to adapt their play style around corruption or lackthereof sure won't be scared off by it. I will be looking for ways to work around the system to deal with problem players who refuse to fight back. Whether that be training mobs, gathering their resources in front of them repeatedly, stealing mobs, etc. I dont want to resort to griefing via PvE, but if thats the route I and others are pushed towards due to the detrimental effect of corruption regardless of the amount of PKs, so be it. All of those things have exponentially less risk than attacking or killing the player as it currently is designed, and these are indeed theoretical work arounds of course. Those things aren't griefing by any reasonable person's metric. It's not possible to 'steal' a resource except through PvP (PK or caravans or post-node sieges), and likewise it's not possible to 'steal' mobs. That's a fundamentally flawed and entitled mindset. If you can outpace a player to resource nodes, if you can successfully claim looting rights on mobs they're fighting, and if you can push them out without PK, why in the world did you resort to PK in the first place and take on corruption? Youre fine with harassing players as long as PKing is deterred at all costs. Got it. Hypocritical, but got it. My guess is you'd advocate for toggling PvP on and off as opposed to even allowing for players to openly attack other players. It's up there with your other stupid baseless guesses about how PvP will function in the open world, certainly, and wrong. And no, since you need it said again, winning a competition over resources isn't harassment. If it was, then this entire game is harassment. Guild and node wars exist expressly to harass and attack enemies in those factions/alliances freely. If they can't beat you out in pacing, then they can try to kill you to make you leave. Just the same as you wanted to do because they 'stole' your spot and 'stole' your resources. Purposely following other players to interfere with their gameplay via PVE methods isn't harassment. Got it. You're a bright little crayon. As I said, if winning a competition over resources is harassment, so are guild wars, so are node wars, so is driving everyone away from a World Boss, so is attacking caravans. This entire game is built up around heavy friction points between players through systems that allow them to screw each other over and deny progress. If a guild lead decides that they have beef with this one particular trader and make sure to attack every single one of their caravans. It's 'harassment' but it's entirely within the scope of expected and encouraged behavior. If you really think it's harassment because someone is beating you from resource to resource, outdoing your damage on mobs you want to farm, then by all means report them and see what a GM does about it. Edit: Good lord it's so damn funny how this boils down to 'Winning the competition over resources without PK is PvE griefing :,( ' Perfect! I was hoping you'd prove my point here. The only case those things are griefing is when the player doing those things is with the intent to ruin another players gameplay, not if the player is trying to advance themselves within the game. If your logic is "if you beat another player to or at something, it's fair game", then why are you against players killing(beating) other players fair and square to do the same thing, but in one case your argue players shouldn't be punished for it, but in the case involving PKs seeking the same exact goal you argue players should be severely punished for it? Winning the competition with or without a PK is not griefing unless the ultimate goal of the offensive player is to ultimately ruin the other players gameplay experience. And NEITHER should be punished the same way as griefing. You are arguing for general open world PvP to be deterred, not just griefing. Those thing are never griefing lmfao. If you resort to PK over a it's because in every other aspect of completion you were worse and less skilled than the other player. All this chatter you posted about intent and goals while apparently still not understanding that neither of those are quantifiable. There is no difference between a PK for gain and a PK to grief, they're all treated the same, and when PK is the only scenario in which that competitor takes significant direct harm onto themselves, yeah obviously you should hit the attacker with corruption. Corruption is not a PvP killer like you claim if you use your brain when going red. All these doom scenarios around the solo PKer is pointless and less than relevant in an objective based group-PvX game. I could not care less about how solo players feel about open world combat. Operating in a group and fighting as a group makes most of the consequences ignorable. If you fight over valuables with someone that hasn't already been shown that you aren't capable of winning in a direct harvesting completion, they'll be purple anyway because it's objectively worse to die green than die purple. When the entire game tells you at all times to 'go purple, go purple, it's better to be purple, you'll have penalties for dying, you'll have worse penalties for dying without fighting back', then yeah obviously i don't expect PKers to be common, because I don't expect dying green to be common. your bias is showing
Dolyem wrote: » Thats the main issue really, you cant (or at least nobody has so far) measure PVE griefing. All you can do is report it and hope a GM catches them and punished them accordingly. Otherwise the only way to deal with them is to PK them. Which is why I argue that a few PKs within reason should be leniently punished, not severely, nor should those cause compounding corruption(edit* for defending yourself). Those are how you can counter that sort of behavior without having to rely on GMs.
