Grievance in PvP

So, I've been worried about the current state of PvP within the game where being one-sidedly attacked is an option.
There always will be people who would like to attack non-conscential person(s).
There always will be people who would find such behavior undesirable when targeted themselves.
I crave a middle ground.
I would like to offer an idea of accumulating in-gameGrievance as a some sort of justification actually back person up into one-sidedly attacking other, while complete lack of Grievance when one-sidedly attacking should be detrimental.
I believe that PvP-Flag alone or a corruption alone sometimes not enough to either incite or justify assaulting a person and, therefore, can not be counted as Grievance.
What can be counted as Grievance then? That would depend from person-to person and from group to group. One would count having a monster or a resource(corpse), that you got your sights on, being claimed by another as a Grievance. Attacking a person within a religious place? - A Grievance, I say! Being rude to your friend? - a Grievance! A wanted poster for a person you never met? - A Grievance against the unlucky one!
A Grievance should be carried without a time limit until paid in blood or forgiven, and not tied to PvP-flag.
Settling a Grievance should not prevent triggering Grievances in return.
I hope that the player should have either wide options to or freely able to choose Grievances which can be justified.
I hope that the player should know if he provoked a Grievance and whenever he does.
I hope that it would be possible to screw-up your arch-enemy(is) once-sidedly without major repressions from the game system and uninvolved parties afterward.
I hope that a fresh player who did not even accumulated any Grievances can not be non-conscentialy attacked by any one, thus ruining his experience. But once he manage to provoke a Grievance, he'll know why.
P.S. No system is perfect, and there are always ways of improvement. Please offer some insights, experiences and constructive criticism. Let our collective wisdom be seen by developers and be judged.
Upd1: Ponder the levels of Grievances. Example: "A" triggered a Grievance against "B". "B" can not assault "A" because Grievance total amount is less than X.
Upd2: Ponder the sources of Grievance. Example:
1) Government of a Node made a decision, that doing SOMETHING within Node territory triggers a point Grievance against chosen_node_membership_level players.
2) Guild "A" designated that they don't like guild "B" and therefore every member of guild "B" gets an automatic point of Grievance.
3) Party Leadership don't like SOMEONE on sight and therefore able to assign up to 1 point of Grievance to target against a target for their party members.
4) Religion designate that doing SOMETHING is wrong and therefore would trigger a point of Grievance against members of that Religion
Upd3: Ponder a counter-play against Grievance. Example:
1) Player "A" has good reputation and therefore has a point of Grace as protection before a point of grievance can be assigned to him.
2) A guild or a party designate a player "A" as their spokesperson(face) and therefore has a point of Grace as protection before a point of grievance can be assigned to him. Assaulting such person might trigger an additional point of grievance.
3) Player "C" is new around here and therefore have a number of points of Grace protecting him against Grievances, but he is always aware when he triggers something against someone.
4) Player "D" dislike fighting and did not participate in any PvP activity and did not die for some days. Has a number of Grace points proportional to days without PvP/dying
UPD3: I do not want to denounce the current system, but I believe that there should be more on top of it, an additional layer. Both giving the player an in-game way to define: what action from the offender would cross the line and justify the one-sided kill; while at the same time, protect the innocent party, which did nothing to offend the killer.
I hope that every decision made by the developer in PvP field would have as little ways to exploit as possible and therefore lower the stress on everyone as consequence.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Arya_Yeshe

why did you pick those flowers without mother nature's consent? someone has to do something about flower pickers

unknown

This content has been removed.

kingmurloc13

Auldrakar wrote: »

If only they had some sort of system that punished people for engaging in non-consensual PvP in most areas. I imagine it as a system that would lower their stats, cause them to drop gear, etc. And they'd have to grind it off in PvE if they wanted to get rid of it.

Why hasn't Intrepid thought of something like this?

Well, you could literary read the next sentence.
Existing system is based on the old ones, have known loopholes and not enough if you want to not be punished by the system when you have justification for one-sided killing.

unknown

This content has been removed.

kingmurloc13

Auldrakar wrote: »

kingmurloc13 wrote: »

I read the sentence, but saying you believe the corruption system alone isn't enough is simply wrong. Most content creators have said that non-consensual PvP is almost non-existent, and this is just in a testing environment where characters are going to get wiped out in a few weeks.

I've heard content creators say that they haven't had someone kill them and go corrupt a single time, and these are people who are able to get stream sniped. The overwhelming consensus is that corruption-baiting is a WAY bigger issue rn than people choosing to engage in non-consensual PvP and get corrupted.

So, you know you have the guy who is baiting you to get corrupted. Why not have a system where such behavior would either generate grievance or, you would be able to assign grievance to a person manually, and therefore allow killing such party w/o getting corrupted?

Its_Me

I find your post a bit confusing.

We know the corruption system is overturned right now where corruption is gained quicker during this alpha.

Regardless, can you sum up what you do not like about the current corruption system?

kingmurloc13

Its_Me wrote: »

I find your post a bit confusing.
Regardless, can you sum up what you do not like about the current corruption system?

No system is perfect. There will always be smart people to exploit PvP system and find ways to be annoying.
I like current system. I don't like how players can exploit it. I believe that it was based on similar systems from other MMORPG games. Unfortunately, we, the players, already have DECADES of experience how abuse such systems to annoy other players.
The players and the staff in-game already experienced how such system can actually protect the offenders and let them stay unpunished, while also allowing to assault a person who you don't have in-game enmity with.
I do not want to denounce the current system, but I believe that there should be more on top of it, an additional layer. Both giving the player an in-game way to define: what action from the offender would cross the line and justify the one-sided kill; while at the same time, protect the innocent party, which did nothing to offend the killer.
I hope that every decision made by the developer in PvP field would have as little ways to exploit as possible and therefore lower the stress on everyone as consequence.

Its_Me

kingmurloc13 wrote: »

The players and the staff in-game already experienced how such system can actually protect the offenders and let them stay unpunished, while also allowing to assault a person who you don't have in-game enmity with.

The corruption system has not been working as intended since the start of this alpha, we know this and are seeing constant changes. For example, in the beginning, players would not go corrupt for killing mounts and they changed it and now players are trying to use mounts during battles to trigger someone to go corrupt, all a part of testing so feedback can improve the system they are in the process of working out.

We know corruption is intentionally overtuned (steven told us this) and certain mechanics of the system are not even implemented yet for this alpha. Yes, we have seen some bugs where even the core mechanic of players killing non-combatants were not working correctly and these players gained no corruption and I am sure we will see more bugs as testing continues but that is one of the most important aspects of alpha, to discover these bugs and issues as developers tweak the mechanics and systems and provide constructive feedback on what we are seeing.

I guess I am suggesting that we try not to judge an entire system based on bugs that might pop up when we know the system is in its primitive phase and not everything is working as intended and new issues might arise when changes are made.

kingmurloc13

Its_Me wrote: »

I guess I am suggesting that we try not to judge an entire system based on bugs that might pop up when we know the system is in its primitive phase and not everything is working as intended and new issues might arise when changes are made.

The message is to give developers food for thought. If the developer team already on track and they know what they doing, it's okay.
What you might have missed from my post is that I am proposing an option for the player to attack the other player one-sidedly, in the open, kill him, his mount, his what-ever and NOT get corrupted, IF he managed to collect enough in-game justification for such an action.
Yes, it is alpha, yes systems are being tested, developed and not set in stone. That's why the message.

Depraved

omg pls no

Its_Me

kingmurloc13 wrote: »

What you might have missed from my post is that I am proposing an option for the player to attack the other player one-sidedly, in the open, kill him, his mount, his what-ever and NOT get corrupted, IF he managed to collect enough in-game justification for such an action.

Yes, this is confusing as Steven has specifically stated this is a PVX game where he wants to significantly reduce players attacking other players that do not wish to fight. He wants the majority of pvp to come from opt-in pvp events and where people flag up on each other and wants it so the reward for attacking and killing someone that remains a non-combatant, will rarely (if ever) be worth it.

Yes, it is alpha, yes systems are being tested, developed and not set in stone. That's why the message.

You might want to also provide the feedback under the channels for alpha feedback as it might be missed under general discussion.

Ehrgeiz

Imagine collecting ressources without Passierschein A38, James315 blessing or paying taxes for the local mobsters.

kingmurloc13

Its_Me wrote: »

Yes, this is confusing as Steven has specifically stated this is a PVX game where he wants to significantly reduce players attacking other players that do not wish to fight. He wants the majority of pvp to come from opt-in pvp events and where people flag up on each other and wants it so the reward for attacking and killing someone that remains a non-combatant, will rarely (if ever) be worth it.

Ah, but there might always be "non-combatants" nearby doing activities which will be detrimental for your combat or well-being. Dropping monsters on you, looting your friends corpses, standing on the way of your aim, spying, freeloading, stealing, cursing your mom, wishing you bad, you name it. What would you do with such non-combatant? What if you have to deal with such every day? Multiple times a day?

Its_Me

kingmurloc13 wrote: »

Ah, but there might always be "non-combatants" nearby doing activities which will be detrimental for your combat or well-being. Dropping monsters on you, looting your friends corpses, standing on the way of your aim, spying, freeloading, stealing, cursing your mom, wishing you bad, you name it. What would you do with such non-combatant? What if you have to deal with such every day? Multiple times a day?

I only play pvp games, some with full loot drop so I was not onboard with the idea of PVX to begin with.

Admitting to myself that most of the games I play have died out too soon, I came to the point where I could see what Steven is attempting to do (balance pvp and pve) so I am forcing myself to keep an open mind.

Your question is asked from a pure pvp perspective and the easy answer would be 'kill them'. However, this is not a PVP game, this is a PVX game so here is my PVX answer.....

As far as someone looting my friends corpse, they immediately turn to combatant when they do this and become fair game to kill without penalty so that should not be an issue as anyone can flag against them and kill them, a group or someone their level.

As far as everything else you have mentioned, I have a few options, flag up and engage, continue what I am doing and try to avoid the grief, or move on.

This ^ certainly takes a bit of an attitude adjustment for most PVPrs and coupled with the fact that Steven has corruption overtuned right now and PKing a non-combatant is probably never worth it during test, many PVPrs are frustrated with not being able to treat this as a PVP game and killing anyone whenever they want. I take that back, we CAN kill whenever we want (with a couple limited exceptions), but there is a hefty penalty in this PVX game for doing so with non-combatants.

So far in testing, I have limited myself to only engaging with people that are flagged or will flag up and have not had an issue finding PVP. I have also used the PVX corruption system to my advantage to beat groups 3x the size of my group at their game of showing up with numbers and flagging to lower health on players and then CCing for the mobs to kill, hoping to push smaller groups out of the area. Griefing back stealing their mobs while they did this for an hour+ and getting the xp on their tags while they were busy trying to grief, resulted in them finally leaving and a sense of accomplishment for us. I have to admit, it was actually quite fun trying to grind and skirt death by mobs and stealing all the xp wasting their time until they gave up and left.

As far as other players showing up in a spot we were grinding and tagging mobs, we made the decision that flagging and killing the non-combatants was not worth the reward of having the spot to ourselves so we simply stole their tagged mob xp by out-DPSing them. 😉 Some groups did flag in this situation and we were rewarded with some PVP.

tl;dr This is a PVX game and PVPrs need to treat it as such and really focus on the risk vs reward aspect of this game when deciding to kill another player that remains a non-combatant. There are multiple ways to treat each situation without becoming corrupted.

kingmurloc13

Its_Me wrote: »

I only play pvp games, some with full loot drop so I was not onboard with the idea of PVX to begin with.

What you also not aware, friend, is that I, myself, has a decade and a half experience as a player in PVX games.
Most of problematic scenarios I can remember are situation similar to 'King of of he hill" game. Where you and your entire group have something precious and there are multiple parties interested taking it from you.
I am talking about situations where you grinding monsters for xp, fighting a boss, escorting something, have an item that can drop on death, you name it.
Then we have the contenders. In a perfect word we just do a thing, fighting, talking or not, between everyone to determine, who has the right for owning a farm spot, item, resource, vehicle, or an in-game life overall. However, here kicks in the gamer mentality. Most gamers nowadays are inclined to do the most effective plays to have what they want. And the most effective plays are often the opposite of noble.
You see, for PvX to be engaging it should provide the player a challenge. And sometimes it is enough to add just a bit to the opposing scales to let everything you have to crumble completely. A single opposing player in the open world have and would have even more options to screw your entire party and halt it's progress, be it leading more monsters to your location, backstabbing you in a crucial moment, tell his friends what is the crucial moment to backstab you from the things he observed about your group so far.
As an experienced PvX player, when you see a potential problem-doers, you have an option to:
1) Eat it and hope for the best. Win is a win that now has extra difficulty. Loss is a loss of resources and time and experience i.e square of time, because experience=time
2) Abandon what you doing. Maybe, there is some place out there which is not contested by other people. Well, most of the really good places are either contested or monitored. Progressive players might want to halt the progress for their potential contenders and invest in spies and other parties for it. Monopoly would provide benefits so big that it is worth it. Even if your party manage to find the other thing, you lost some more time. Most likely the old thing was better than the ne one.
3) Acknowledge the risks. Wait. Make a counter-play for potential threat. Making a counter-play often slows down your party into a snail pace. Yes, you lose nothing, you keep everything, except extra-time you would have if you choose the other way to address the problem. In the end, opposing player(s) managed to halt your progress a bit, not a big loss. But what if they will be there every time? Over the days slowing your progress so much that you can not be a contenders to the players of your skill level anymore because they already managed to progress so, so much further then you because they did not lose the time?
If we chose to wait, we also lose nothing, except more time.
4) Confront the other parties. Engage in PvP or parlay. Again, in a perfect world everything would be resolved at this step, winners and losers quickly determined. However, in most situations, the contenders will just opt to be non-combatant, force you to eat PvP system penalties killing them or have you leave them staying there, whatever they're up to. One have to bear in mind that what you are against is not an average player, those are agents and they seek long-term benefits. They don't mind dying in-game. They can endure it, to have what they want later. This might be a special character raised just for this entire purpose. This is their game, this is their fun.
We, the PvX players, been doing this things to ourselves the entire decades. Not because we, necessary, like it. But because such behavior is optimal. If there is the system, the players seek ways to abuse them. Current one is based on the old systems in PvX and therefore, most of the loopholes are known and ready to be abused for us to reach our optimal heights.
Now, look at the forum, look at the video feedback, there are already some reports and evidence of people doing dirty things, while staying non-combatant.
What would you do to a person who fed your beloved one a poison? He is the evil-doer, he is killing what is dear and precious to you, but he remains non-combatant, protected by the system. Would you forgive him, like a holy man should? Would you assault such person and eat penalties of the system? Whatever you chose, the consequences are hard to bear for an average person and have the bitter taste.
I'd rather have and additional layer to the system to mark untrustworthy party as hostile and attack them. Have the system back up the player who is actually in the right, instead of a player who did not engage in any offense in the open, resorting only to subtle offense, unrecognizable by the system.

Child Item