Caeryl wrote: » 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 Yeah, the bias of playing skillfully over whining for less consequences? 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. Oh yes, it's my bias that's a problem when you're of the misguided opinion that someone farming a location more efficiently to deny you resources is something they should be punished for. No GM is going to take you seriously if you report someone for harvesting better than you. Why the hell would they ever punish them? Should I report the guild lead who declared war on my guild and started attacking all our caravans and ships and castle? Obviously not, even though all those have a much more significant negative impact on the game experience of many more players than one person mad about this other player farming 'their' spot and harvesting 'their' mats without punishment.
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
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: » 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.
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: » 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: » 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: » 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: » 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?
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
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.
Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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 Yeah, the bias of playing skillfully over whining for less consequences? 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. Oh yes, it's my bias that's a problem when you're of the misguided opinion that someone farming a location more efficiently to deny you resources is something they should be punished for. No GM is going to take you seriously if you report someone for harvesting better than you. Why the hell would they ever punish them? Should I report the guild lead who declared war on my guild and started attacking all our caravans and ships and castle? Obviously not, even though all those have a much more significant negative impact on the game experience of many more players than one person mad about this other player farming 'their' spot and harvesting 'their' mats without punishment. I get it dude. PVEers cant grief. You hate PvP. All PKers bad. Move along.
Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Caeryl wrote: » 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 Yeah, the bias of playing skillfully over whining for less consequences? 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. Oh yes, it's my bias that's a problem when you're of the misguided opinion that someone farming a location more efficiently to deny you resources is something they should be punished for. No GM is going to take you seriously if you report someone for harvesting better than you. Why the hell would they ever punish them? Should I report the guild lead who declared war on my guild and started attacking all our caravans and ships and castle? Obviously not, even though all those have a much more significant negative impact on the game experience of many more players than one person mad about this other player farming 'their' spot and harvesting 'their' mats without punishment. I get it dude. PVEers cant grief. You hate PvP. All PKers bad. Move along. Learn to read, it'll do you some good. Meanwhile I'll be enjoy PvP and fighting in Ashes while you stay afraid of it for no reason. See you lot in a week, servers allowing.
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. And the way I would define PvE griefing is the same as PvP griefing. Repetitive, harassing actions meant to negatively impact a players gameplay experience. A couple mob trains to make a point isnt necessarily a bad thing. But if you train mobs on someone for 30 minutes to an hours, thatd be griefing.
Ludullu wrote: » 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. And the way I would define PvE griefing is the same as PvP griefing. Repetitive, harassing actions meant to negatively impact a players gameplay experience. A couple mob trains to make a point isnt necessarily a bad thing. But if you train mobs on someone for 30 minutes to an hours, thatd be griefing. But you do realize that you'll have to PK to the point of not being able to remove that corruption w/o dying right? Cause if your only way of outcompeting someone is by PKing them - you've already lost. And I highly doubt that Steven will see "training mobs onto someone to farm a spot" as griefing (even repetitively), because that's just one of the tools players can use. Hell, I'd imagine that even repetitive PKing won't be considered griefing, as long as you stay in the same spot and do the content you were PKing people to do. It's just that the corruption system itself will punish you way harder than a GM would. This is why I'm saying that Intrepid need to add tools to address this kind of pve manipulation, just as "corruption" is a tool to address pvp manipulation.
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 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?
Dolyem wrote: » I would be all for tracking PKs per player if possible, which would make it easier to discern if a player is being camped. As opposed to PKing several different players. I would give less corruption for PKing 5 players 1 time each in 20 minutes vs if you are on your 5th PK on the same player in 20 minutes
Sathrago wrote: » Honestly if a game has open world pvp you do not have the right to walk around pretending it doesnt exist. When you made your character you should have understood you were at threat of being attacked at any point. So thats the point of contact where you consented to this kind of pvp.
Ludullu wrote: » And I agree with all of that. None of that changes that fact that killing a completely passive target (which might even have mobs on it) is the lowest-damn-skilled action possible. It requires no skill. It requires no gear. It requires no thought. You simply toggle on auto-attack and sit on your ass, while your char PKs someone.
Sathrago wrote: » I cant agree with it requiring no skill and no gear assuming we are talking about solo vs solo or group vs group. Just because someone is not attacking back does not mean they cant out heal or outrun you. I will say that I can agree if its ganking. the rare exception would be if you see them at low health bracket and then go in. that's the brainless type of killing. And to be honest, I'm completely opposed to them adding the tiers to health. the original intent is better served if we cannot see the targets health range at all.
Ludullu wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I would be all for tracking PKs per player if possible, which would make it easier to discern if a player is being camped. As opposed to PKing several different players. I would give less corruption for PKing 5 players 1 time each in 20 minutes vs if you are on your 5th PK on the same player in 20 minutes And the problem with that approach is the "karma bombing" people would do. Because if you've defended a great farming spot, that means that the same person you just PKed would return to that spot because it's great. And then if you want to keep removing them - you'll keep killing the same person over and over. And none of that is griefing, because you're simply competing for the spot. This is why I keep saying that PKing will never be the way to compete for a spot. And this is also why I agree that all the other methods of competition are in no way griefing, cause you'll have to use them if you can't just completely outfarm a person. And out of all of those - PKing is the very last thing you should even attempt.
Ludullu wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Honestly if a game has open world pvp you do not have the right to walk around pretending it doesnt exist. When you made your character you should have understood you were at threat of being attacked at any point. So thats the point of contact where you consented to this kind of pvp. And I agree with all of that. None of that changes that fact that killing a completely passive target (which might even have mobs on it) is the lowest-damn-skilled action possible. It requires no skill. It requires no gear. It requires no thought. You simply toggle on auto-attack and sit on your ass, while your char PKs someone.
Paqu wrote: » OR you could just have a better PVP system where the player can opt out of PVP unless he's running caravans or boats. The corruption system no matter what is implemented will not work just disable PVP for people who do not want to or create areas that are pvp enabled. This dream of a massive pvp game guild vs guild will kill this game fast. Solo players will leave small guilds will disband I cant believe were still trying this in 2024 its literally failed every time its been done... mortal online 1 and 2 and so many others have proved this... get rid of it.
