The only "detterent" for anti-land management is how inventory works. But if your goal isn't resources, that's as simple as throwing them away and continuing on harvesting.
Yes, you contribute to a nodes progression when gathering, but that's only relevant in a servers infancy. Once you have nodes leveled up, you're only able to progress so much before other nodes need to be taken out. So the whole environment management thing becomes even more of a pain at that point.
Hihi, no offence, but it reminds me so much of the kind of silly, and often convoluted, plans put forth by cartoon villains. The kind of scheming and shenanigans that bring them down in the end of the episode.
A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks...
I prefer your simpler solution.
(If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange)
A green who attacks a red and dies probably deserves it, as red players gain a debuff that saps some stats, stacking with the people they kill.
A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks...
I prefer your simpler solution.
(If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange)
A green who attacks a red and dies probably deserves it, as red players gain a debuff that saps some stats, stacking with the people they kill.
In my suggestions I also clarified that it'd be fine for the attacking green to recieves 50% penalties when dying to a corrupted as long as they attacked the corrupted player and had the 4th flagging status.
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
PvX. It's all supposed to be intertwined. Open ocean will have potentially greater PvE rewards but with greater risk due to unchecked PvP.
Having that does not mean there should ever be a safe zone for gatherers. This would be an opt-out of PvP, and as a result not a PvX feature. Not to mention, not enough risk for your rewards
I dissagree that every activity must have PvP. You cannot change my pov. But I don't even ask now, here, for a safe activity for gatherers. They'll have PvP too, in a clumsy way between them, if they notice one grabbed a rare material before the other. The anger and greed Steven mentioned will kick in.
But if you go involve youself in their clumsy PvP, you risk getting corrupt and be hunted by Bounty Hunters or killed by the gatherers themselves if you cannot defeat all of them. You being killed by more of them is a good balancing. Go mind your business where you can make a difference.
And here is where you misinterpret the purpose of corruption. It is to deter griefing, not ganking a player once for loot you want. You've already seen Steven's definition for griefing, and his purpose for corruption. You just don't want PvP to occur. You should play a PvE game.
You are wrong. I want PvP but I also want a healthy amount of players. Otherwise Steven might have to create one worldwide server for all of us. Which would also be OK for me as a player. Then he should drop the prime time and do some changes to how events are planned.
If I spend my time in the sea, I don't mind others having less PvP while cutting wood. Also need of PvP fluctuates. If I am tired I might go cut wood too. Or tame creatures. You can go and kill them before I manage tame them if that makes you happy. It is a valid mechanic but worth doing it only if it happens you are passing by and not stay and roam the woods. If I see you there, I'll go back to the sea and spend my time more efficiently while you think you are useful.
What you ask for is separation of the playstyles. In true PvX, you are required to deal with PvP just as much as PvE. Risk vs Reward at its finest. Risking PvP to be rewarded through PvE.
You can argue for your out of place pseudo-PvE safehaven, but I'll be here reminding you of Steven's antithetical design to your own.
Risk vs reward will auto calibrate itself.
Makes no sense to kill a player to take his bunch of sticks.
In areas with rare resources you will find it worth killing a gatherer but only if you are somewhat sure they have a full inventory. In those places NPC levels might also be high enough to start cleaning your corruption while avoiding other players.
Also if you see somebody picking up an epic tier resource then you will have a good reason to attack and kill.
So low risk areas will exist if corruption works as intended. Those will not attract many PvE players anyway as they are the lowest quality PvE possible. Are closer to gathering, farming, grinding activities than good PvE. But will retain players who like doing such mindless jobs.
With your OP change request, you would manage to kill more greens if they would dare to try to chase you away from the spot you use to clear your corruption. And they wouldn't dare if they come one by one because with your changes, they would know that you get no additional corruption if they are defeated. That would be a bad thing, to discourage a green to enter combat against a corrupt player.
Greens must have incentive to enter combat against both purple and red, not only against purple.
Part of the risk is not knowing if a player has loot you want. Greens incentive is to try to get their loot back. And the change focuses on punishing griefing, not PvP that is willingly engaged
Not knowing the type of loot could be applied to caravans too. But for some reason the caravans have an indicator to show if they carry valuable cargo.
You keep mentioning griefing but becoming corrupt is the first step of becoming a griefer yourself. You didn't mentioned the griefing part in the OP. Just that you do not want to get more corruption.
The thing is that once you kill a green, it will be reasonable to not kill a 2nd one to avoid corruption increase.
So you will be in control at maintaining a low corruption and stay invisible to bounty hunters while killing constantly other players: Players with a high enough corruption score will be visible on the world and mini maps.
And you will also not run away because you will never attack.
You will stay near a spot and farm NPCs and clean the corruption.
With the current mechanics players at NPC spawns will just try to lower each other's health and let the NPC deal the killing blow. But mistakes can happen and the corrupt player will have to flee.
Else as soon as a new player comes, he has to kill him.
But with your change, you don't care. You can just stay and farm. Whoever wants to chase you away is killed (in self defense) and you continue killing NPCs.
But that seems to be against Steven's wish:
The penalties are intended to be severe enough to deter any type of spawn camping.[53]
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged.
You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there.
If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
PvX. It's all supposed to be intertwined. Open ocean will have potentially greater PvE rewards but with greater risk due to unchecked PvP.
Having that does not mean there should ever be a safe zone for gatherers. This would be an opt-out of PvP, and as a result not a PvX feature. Not to mention, not enough risk for your rewards
I dissagree that every activity must have PvP. You cannot change my pov. But I don't even ask now, here, for a safe activity for gatherers. They'll have PvP too, in a clumsy way between them, if they notice one grabbed a rare material before the other. The anger and greed Steven mentioned will kick in.
But if you go involve youself in their clumsy PvP, you risk getting corrupt and be hunted by Bounty Hunters or killed by the gatherers themselves if you cannot defeat all of them. You being killed by more of them is a good balancing. Go mind your business where you can make a difference.
And here is where you misinterpret the purpose of corruption. It is to deter griefing, not ganking a player once for loot you want. You've already seen Steven's definition for griefing, and his purpose for corruption. You just don't want PvP to occur. You should play a PvE game.
You are wrong. I want PvP but I also want a healthy amount of players. Otherwise Steven might have to create one worldwide server for all of us. Which would also be OK for me as a player. Then he should drop the prime time and do some changes to how events are planned.
If I spend my time in the sea, I don't mind others having less PvP while cutting wood. Also need of PvP fluctuates. If I am tired I might go cut wood too. Or tame creatures. You can go and kill them before I manage tame them if that makes you happy. It is a valid mechanic but worth doing it only if it happens you are passing by and not stay and roam the woods. If I see you there, I'll go back to the sea and spend my time more efficiently while you think you are useful.
What you ask for is separation of the playstyles. In true PvX, you are required to deal with PvP just as much as PvE. Risk vs Reward at its finest. Risking PvP to be rewarded through PvE.
You can argue for your out of place pseudo-PvE safehaven, but I'll be here reminding you of Steven's antithetical design to your own.
Risk vs reward will auto calibrate itself.
Makes no sense to kill a player to take his bunch of sticks.
In areas with rare resources you will find it worth killing a gatherer but only if you are somewhat sure they have a full inventory. In those places NPC levels might also be high enough to start cleaning your corruption while avoiding other players.
Also if you see somebody picking up an epic tier resource then you will have a good reason to attack and kill.
So low risk areas will exist if corruption works as intended. Those will not attract many PvE players anyway as they are the lowest quality PvE possible. Are closer to gathering, farming, grinding activities than good PvE. But will retain players who like doing such mindless jobs.
With your OP change request, you would manage to kill more greens if they would dare to try to chase you away from the spot you use to clear your corruption. And they wouldn't dare if they come one by one because with your changes, they would know that you get no additional corruption if they are defeated. That would be a bad thing, to discourage a green to enter combat against a corrupt player.
Greens must have incentive to enter combat against both purple and red, not only against purple.
Part of the risk is not knowing if a player has loot you want. Greens incentive is to try to get their loot back. And the change focuses on punishing griefing, not PvP that is willingly engaged
Not knowing the type of loot could be applied to caravans too. But for some reason the caravans have an indicator to show if they carry valuable cargo.
You keep mentioning griefing but becoming corrupt is the first step of becoming a griefer yourself. You didn't mentioned the griefing part in the OP. Just that you do not want to get more corruption.
The thing is that once you kill a green, it will be reasonable to not kill a 2nd one to avoid corruption increase.
So you will be in control at maintaining a low corruption and stay invisible to bounty hunters while killing constantly other players: Players with a high enough corruption score will be visible on the world and mini maps.
And you will also not run away because you will never attack.
You will stay near a spot and farm NPCs and clean the corruption.
With the current mechanics players at NPC spawns will just try to lower each other's health and let the NPC deal the killing blow. But mistakes can happen and the corrupt player will have to flee.
Else as soon as a new player comes, he has to kill him.
But with your change, you don't care. You can just stay and farm. Whoever wants to chase you away is killed (in self defense) and you continue killing NPCs.
But that seems to be against Steven's wish:
The penalties are intended to be severe enough to deter any type of spawn camping.[53]
I am indifferent to whether or not caravans actually show what they are carrying, but those are also much grander events than just someone out gathering.
And yes, I have mentioned several times that I believe there should be variables and stages for corruption to offer the first bit as a warning while still providing minor debuffs, while rapidly increasing the penalties once the threshold for griefing parameters are met. You'd still have to go work the early minor bits off, offering players respite from that player, and spacing PvP out, deterring griefing. And if they continue to the point of actually griefing, they'd be much worse off as intended, properly being punished for actions that can be considered griefing.
And while I never used the word griefing in my OP, it was implied.
I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power
So what am I suggesting? Make a 4th player combat flagging status. Where a non-combatant who engages a corrupted doesn't give more corruption upon being killed, but also isn't flagged fully as a combatant, so someone else who isn't corrupted could still become corrupted from attacking them. Could call it vigilante status or something.
Why? Because the only ones who should grant corruption are the ones who aren't fighting back against you.
And my whole point was because defending yourself is just PvP. You're already weaker, no sense in exponential increase in penalties for fighting back against a player who chose to engage you.
The time to work off 1-3 kills just needs to be reasonable. If you are only able to kill a few non-combatants an hour due to having to work it off, not only are you on the map for that long, but if youre working it off, you've placed a cooldown on that player going out to kill non-combatants as well. Yet again preventing Stevens definition of griefing, but also not punishing PvP. Even if this is all you did, you'd be giving enough respite for non-combatants to go on playing without being camped. You have the time they are getting their couple kills within the allotted time span, added to the time it takes to work it off, and you have your solid baseline for a non-griefing corrupted player, which I think should be roughly 30 minutes per kill, up to about 3 kills total before you start to really get the heavier punishment, at which point I would start ramping up to hours per kill, and higher stat dampening. But yea, maintaining low corruption is essentially spacing kills out to allow players to play without being camped. Also I would add that I think you should have to stay at your highest point of corruption achieved until you reach zero, that way you dont slowly become stronger as you become less corrupt after going on a spree.
Running away or not is determined by whether or not the fight is manageable or not. Non-combatants already dont get affected by CC, so they have the advantage of chasing, and if the non-combatants came without enough firepower, the faults on them for engaging. Either way, thats an act of PvP, and should not contribute to griefing penalties when defended against.
And if I am not attacking non-combatants during this time, isn't that a good thing for the non-combatants?
I still care with the change, because any non-combatant can watch and wait for an opportunity. I am already weakened, so if that player really wants me to die, they can jump me if I pull too many mobs or let my health get too low, its on them if I manage to come out as the winner. Theyd have to engage first to make it where I dont gain corruption. Otherwise, theyre fine, and if I attack? I would gain more corruption, and be punished accordingly if I meet the parameters of griefing after the kill. And theres also the fact that I still drop 4x as much loot, which would definitely make me care.
The penalties are intended to be severe enough to deter any type of spawn camping.[53]
Indeed, and spawn camping is what? Griefing... It's Griefing. Those severe penalties are all meant for griefing. Not PvP.
How dare you not intensely argue about the deep specifics of a game system that nobody has seen or tested yet?!
lol I know right. Nah it's fine and good even to debate these things. We've been doing it for years here about all kinds of things.
The debate here in this thread about a 4th flagging status is very valid imo. Reds not being able to kill aggressive greens attacking them without gaining additional corruption - this being the way it is has a very specific effect. That effect is that a red is compelled to flee almost always. Couple that effect with a red's inability to CC aggressive greens in order to flee, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize it's not really about being logical, moreso just "fuck reds."
That appears to me to be intended and kinda just the way it is. But it's worthy of debate. But putting all of that aside, the general tuning of the corruption/flagging system, how much open world pvx should be in our open world pvx game etc - I think the majority of the current backers are a lot closer to each other in how they think it should be than it appears.
We just don't have anything solid in our hands to debate, we don't have the game. We don't have a starting point of being able to point at anything tangible and say yo this is too harsh or yo this is too lenient.
And that's what I care more about, the general tuning of the system. Do we have sufficient room to pvx in a pvx game. The specific "effect' I talked about above is part of that tuning. But it is also a standalone effect that is neither neccessary nor unwarranted. Could go either way, worthy of debate.
Lots of words and I don't think I really even said anything hahah
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged.
You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there.
If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
The 2nd paragraph
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki?
I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics.
Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green.
And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt.
Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby.
Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away.
Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed.
As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added.
To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier.
The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants.
If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore.
It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain.
Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power
So what am I suggesting? Make a 4th player combat flagging status. Where a non-combatant who engages a corrupted doesn't give more corruption upon being killed, but also isn't flagged fully as a combatant, so someone else who isn't corrupted could still become corrupted from attacking them. Could call it vigilante status or something.
Why? Because the only ones who should grant corruption are the ones who aren't fighting back against you.
The other more simple solution is to make anyone attacking someone a combatant regardless of if the player has corruption or not, but that opens up players to being taken out by a corrupted players friends once they are flagged as combatant, hence my suggestion.
What about just having a Green character who attacks a Red first receive a sort of debuff or maybe "Tag" would be a better word.
This would only serve as a purpose to free the Red Player to defend himself and free him of further corruption/penalties. Any player who attacks a red first stays green.
It would apply to any player who attacks a Red first. You would not receive the Tag if the Red Player killed you as a Green, a sort of revenge system and it could have a 15 minute timer on it. Might also prevent some griefing because that player will be deincentivized to kill you over and over. So exactly as it works now. The main goal of preventing other players pushing that Red player into further corruption despite trying to work it off.
That way you can maintain the criminal system. Can't really think of another draw back besides Reds trying to provoke Greens to attack them first. That could go both ways though. It would further promote PVP too.
Far as I can see it would operate more like a duel since if other players attack that green player and he dies would become Red and gain corruption.
I want to test their system first, fully understand it, and see what player behavior with the system is like before thinking about making suggestions or asking for something to change,
We look forward to seeing players interact with all of the systems! Flagging, in particular, is exciting since there wasn't much testing of it in Alpha One!
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged.
You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there.
If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
The 2nd paragraph
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki?
I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics.
Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green.
And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt.
Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby.
Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away.
Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed.
As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added.
To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier.
The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants.
If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore.
It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain.
Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay.
And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times.
And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups.
I want to test their system first, fully understand it, and see what player behavior with the system is like before thinking about making suggestions or asking for something to change,
We look forward to seeing players interact with all of the systems! Flagging, in particular, is exciting since there wasn't much testing of it in Alpha One!
I'll do my best to break everything I can so the end-product has the least amount of flaws possible
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged.
You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there.
If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
The 2nd paragraph
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki?
I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics.
Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green.
And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt.
Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby.
Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away.
Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed.
As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added.
To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier.
The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants.
If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore.
It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain.
Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay.
And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times.
And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups.
Even tho a 4th player combat flagging status could work as an extra tool for balancing the corruption system, i don't currently see a need for it, specially before properly even testing it's A2 iteration.
Even tho Ashes' corruption is currently harsher than Lineage 2's karma, L2 didn't had chances to drop mats from non-combatants/combatants nor the benefit of losing less xp/mats that combatant's death provides.
While i believe PKing will probably be reasonably less prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2, i do believe Combatant-on-combatant violence will be quite more prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2 (on land, not even considering the Lawless Open Seas).
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged.
You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there.
If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
The 2nd paragraph
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki?
I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics.
Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green.
And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt.
Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby.
Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away.
Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed.
As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added.
To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier.
The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants.
If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore.
It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain.
Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay.
And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times.
And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups.
I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen.
Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game.
And if he wants it to be popular or niche.
I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking.
Even tho a 4th player combat flagging status could work as an extra tool for balancing the corruption system, i don't currently see a need for it, specially before properly even testing it's A2 iteration.
Even tho Ashes' corruption is currently harsher than Lineage 2's karma, L2 didn't had chances to drop mats from non-combatants/combatants nor the benefit of losing less xp/mats that combatant's death provides.
While i believe PKing will probably be reasonably less prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2, i do believe Combatant-on-combatant violence will be quite more prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2 (on land, not even considering the Lawless Open Seas).
It should definitely get tested, but I will always point out ways I plan to break things before I play if it speeds up the devs work and maintains intent on gameplay.
It may very well not be what Intrepid wants, or it could very well have given Steven an "oh shit he's right" moment. We likely won't know, but if I see something I don't think lines up with what Steven has been pitching, I'm happy to point it out and debate it.
Edit: I still like to think I was responsible for Open Sea PvP happening
Even tho a 4th player combat flagging status could work as an extra tool for balancing the corruption system, i don't currently see a need for it, specially before properly even testing it's A2 iteration.
Even tho Ashes' corruption is currently harsher than Lineage 2's karma, L2 didn't had chances to drop mats from non-combatants/combatants nor the benefit of losing less xp/mats that combatant's death provides.
While i believe PKing will probably be reasonably less prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2, i do believe Combatant-on-combatant violence will be quite more prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2 (on land, not even considering the Lawless Open Seas).
It should definitely get tested, but I will always point out ways I plan to break things before I play if it speeds up the devs work and maintains intent on gameplay.
It may very well not be what Intrepid wants, or it could very well have given Steven an "oh shit he's right" moment. We likely won't know, but if I see something I don't think lines up with what Steven has been pitching, I'm happy to point it out and debate it.
Edit: I still like to think I was responsible for Open Sea PvP happening
I get your idea, it's a reasonable mindset and might end up being something more fuctiontional and desirable for Ashes than it would be in L2 which is the main point of reference.
As for the Lawless Open Seas, i expected it way before it was announced for Ashes due to ArcheAge's Open Seas and its relation to the naval combat inspiration for Ashes.
Even tho a 4th player combat flagging status could work as an extra tool for balancing the corruption system, i don't currently see a need for it, specially before properly even testing it's A2 iteration.
Even tho Ashes' corruption is currently harsher than Lineage 2's karma, L2 didn't had chances to drop mats from non-combatants/combatants nor the benefit of losing less xp/mats that combatant's death provides.
While i believe PKing will probably be reasonably less prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2, i do believe Combatant-on-combatant violence will be quite more prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2 (on land, not even considering the Lawless Open Seas).
It should definitely get tested, but I will always point out ways I plan to break things before I play if it speeds up the devs work and maintains intent on gameplay.
It may very well not be what Intrepid wants, or it could very well have given Steven an "oh shit he's right" moment. We likely won't know, but if I see something I don't think lines up with what Steven has been pitching, I'm happy to point it out and debate it.
Edit: I still like to think I was responsible for Open Sea PvP happening
I get your idea, it's a reasonable mindset and might end up being something more fuctiontional and desirable for Ashes than it would be in L2 which is the main point of reference.
As for the Lawless Open Seas, i expected it way before it was announced for Ashes due to ArcheAge's Open Seas and its relation to the naval combat inspiration for Ashes.
Fair point, but it was very coincidentally relative to when I was posting a lot about how fun open sea PvP would be. Just sayin hahaha, you let me have this fantasy dammit!
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged.
You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there.
If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
The 2nd paragraph
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki?
I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics.
Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green.
And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt.
Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby.
Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away.
Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed.
As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added.
To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier.
The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants.
If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore.
It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain.
Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay.
And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times.
And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups.
I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen.
Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game.
And if he wants it to be popular or niche.
I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking.
You mean you see a corrupt player getting more corruption when is forced to kill a green in self defense as griefing?
Independent of the question above, I have one more idea. Maybe was mentioned and I missed it.
I see on wiki:
Non-combatants entering an open world battleground (PvP event) are automatically flagged as combatants and remain flagged for a period of time after leaving that battleground.[10]
T = period of time after leaving that battleground
Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would get no more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after T elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away?
Because after T elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them.
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged.
You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there.
If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
The 2nd paragraph
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki?
I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics.
Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green.
And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt.
Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby.
Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away.
Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed.
As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added.
To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier.
The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants.
If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore.
It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain.
Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay.
And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times.
And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups.
I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen.
Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game.
And if he wants it to be popular or niche.
I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking.
You mean you see a corrupt player getting more corruption when is forced to kill a green in self defense as griefing?
Independent of the question above, I have one more idea. Maybe was mentioned and I missed it.
I see on wiki:
Non-combatants entering an open world battleground (PvP event) are automatically flagged as combatants and remain flagged for a period of time after leaving that battleground.[10]
T = period of time after leaving that battleground
Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would get no more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after T elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away?
Because after T elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them.
I assume T is 5 or more minutes.
I see defending oneself by fighting back regardless of ones status as a form of gameplay that shouldn't be punished in any way.
And I guess that could work if I'm reading that correctly? You'd still need a way to differentiate those greens from greens that aren't attacking at all. I think it'd be far simpler to just apply the 4th flagging status and pretty much have the same result. Unless you really think the 5 minute timer until it is allowed is necessary?
Guy is looking for a compromise where there isn't a need for one.
Nobody disagrees that continuous PKing of greens that don't fight back ought to be additionally punished, but if a green consents to a fight, killing them as a red is not griefing any moreso than killing a purple as a purple, and therefore should not be penalized. "Extra corruption for killing PvP-consented greens after having gained corruption is part of the punishment" is nothing more than a biased PvEer perspective and a desire to never see any PKing, which is not what Steven wants? PKing can be easily reduced by increasing the usual penalty, without completely messing with the people who ever dared PKing someone.
Specific penalties for a crime make sense. More of the same penalty for no additional crime does not.
"Extra corruption for killing PvP-consented greens after having gained corruption is part of the punishment" is nothing more than a biased PvEer perspective and a desire to never see any PKing, which is not what Steven wants?
What does mean the question mark at the end of your statement?
PvEers will not play this game.
Steven explains that the reason is a "fun cat-and-mouse" game and that the the corrupted player's main way to get rid of of corruption is through death. He wants to gradually increase the chance of the corrupt player to die, if he doesn't run away:
Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties. Where this changes is when a Combatant kills a Non-Combatant. In this case, the Combatant is Corrupt, and acquires a Corruption Score (which is accrued based on a number of different parameters, including the level differential of their freshly slain victim). This Corruption Score can be worked off with effort through a few mechanics, but the primary means of getting rid of it is through death.
While a player is marked as Corrupt, they may be attacked by both Combatants and Non-Combatants. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player, the non-combatant will not flag as a combatant. We also have some other ideas that we haven’t formalized yet that will allow players to participate in what we feel could be a fun cat-and-mouse part of the game. As an example, the location of these corrupt players will be displayed on the map, if you have the Bounty Hunter title,
The quote is from 2017 but the rules were not changes over these 7 years.
PKing can be easily reduced by increasing the usual penalty, without completely messing with the people who ever dared PKing someone.
Then it would become a rigid rule, easily leading to opt-in PvP system.
I prefer gradual transitions from a state to another.
But Steven made the rules.
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged.
You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there.
If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
The 2nd paragraph
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki?
I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics.
Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green.
And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt.
Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby.
Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away.
Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed.
As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added.
To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier.
The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants.
If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore.
It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain.
Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay.
And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times.
And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups.
I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen.
Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game.
And if he wants it to be popular or niche.
I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking.
You mean you see a corrupt player getting more corruption when is forced to kill a green in self defense as griefing?
Independent of the question above, I have one more idea. Maybe was mentioned and I missed it.
I see on wiki:
Non-combatants entering an open world battleground (PvP event) are automatically flagged as combatants and remain flagged for a period of time after leaving that battleground.[10]
T = period of time after leaving that battleground
Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would get no more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after T elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away?
Because after T elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them.
I assume T is 5 or more minutes.
I see defending oneself by fighting back regardless of ones status as a form of gameplay that shouldn't be punished in any way.
And I guess that could work if I'm reading that correctly? You'd still need a way to differentiate those greens from greens that aren't attacking at all. I think it'd be far simpler to just apply the 4th flagging status and pretty much have the same result. Unless you really think the 5 minute timer until it is allowed is necessary?
Of course to differentiate the green who hunt and attacks first from another who is attacked, a flag is needed.
The discussion from my PoV is about
- why the rules are as they are
- what Steven wanted
- if he made a mistake or not
- what impact onto the general game-play will be
I wouldn't mind a different game-play but if I suspect that Steven wants the game described as it is on wiki, then I will point out how the change would influence the game.
The reason why I am not attached to a certain game-play style is that Steven said "anything is subject to change". I bought the game taking into account changes too
But back to the topic.
It could be that 5 minutes is a bit long but time to kill is long too.
I do not know why Steven decided that "period of time after leaving that battleground". But I feel the same reasons can be applied here too without knowing for sure, and even other reasons.
The wiki states
The penalties are intended to be severe enough to deter any type of spawn camping.[70]
So I think the corrupt players should be encouraged to leave the area.
The area is easy to know, basically being defined by the coordinates where the player was killed.
Green players located close enough to that spot could be considered as involved into the event (witnesses) and should have the right to chase the corrupt player to increase his corruption.
Players outside of that area, I would consider similar to Bounty Hunters but without the ability to see on the map where the corrupt player is. Because the Bounty Hunters need to have an advantage over such green players.
5 minutes after the kill occurred, I would remove the additional penalties if the corrupt defends itself.
It could be that the corrupt attacked all greens fighting NPCs and reduced their health, killed one by mistake, then it has to run. The greens may or may not follow. After 5 minutes, one of those greens or any other green could be considered an attacker, similar to a BH.
What does mean the question mark at the end of your statement?
I added the question mark because I can't 100% know what Steven wants, but most of his statements regarding the corruption system suggest that he doesn't want it to end up being a huge deterrent to PKing, but rather excessive PKing. Yet, unless escape is easy (which would be another issue), I'm sure it'll remove most PKing and only planned and prepared PKing will happen (meaning no random spontaneous one-off PKing a guy that was taking your farming/gathering spot, training mobs or griefing you).
Steven explains that the reason is a "fun cat-and-mouse" game and that the the corrupted player's main way to get rid of of corruption is through death. He wants to gradually increase the chance of the corrupt player to die, if he doesn't run away:
The chance of the corrupted player dying is already plentily increased by the fact that they're a criminal that on death will drop tons of resources, possibly a gear piece. Therefore people will have incentive to hunt them down, which is fine. Not allowing them to defend themselves against their hunters without getting penalized additionally? That's bullshit.
PKing can be easily reduced by increasing the usual penalty, without completely messing with the people who ever dared PKing someone.
Then it would become a rigid rule, easily leading to opt-in PvP system.
I prefer gradual transitions from a state to another.
But Steven made the rules.
Steven explains that the reason is a "fun cat-and-mouse" game and that the the corrupted player's main way to get rid of of corruption is through death. He wants to gradually increase the chance of the corrupt player to die, if he doesn't run away:
Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties. Where this changes is when a Combatant kills a Non-Combatant. In this case, the Combatant is Corrupt, and acquires a Corruption Score (which is accrued based on a number of different parameters, including the level differential of their freshly slain victim). This Corruption Score can be worked off with effort through a few mechanics, but the primary means of getting rid of it is through death.
While a player is marked as Corrupt, they may be attacked by both Combatants and Non-Combatants. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player, the non-combatant will not flag as a combatant. We also have some other ideas that we haven’t formalized yet that will allow players to participate in what we feel could be a fun cat-and-mouse part of the game. As an example, the location of these corrupt players will be displayed on the map, if you have the Bounty Hunter title,
The quote is from 2017 but the rules were not changes over these 7 years.
PKing can be easily reduced by increasing the usual penalty, without completely messing with the people who ever dared PKing someone.
Then it would become a rigid rule, easily leading to opt-in PvP system.
I prefer gradual transitions from a state to another.
But Steven made the rules.
That quote is indeed from a long time ago, and while relevant, I believe the "cat and mouse" idea sort of goes out the window with the later addition of non-combatants not being affected by crowd-control effects. That basically makes escape impossible unless you're able to fly away or disappear altogether.
And in regards to your gradual transition comment, that is exactly what I have been suggesting with having early PKs for corruption be much less punishing than repeated ones. It separates normal OWPvP engagements from griefing.
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged.
You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there.
If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
The 2nd paragraph
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki?
I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics.
Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green.
And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt.
Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby.
Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away.
Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed.
As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added.
To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier.
The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants.
If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore.
It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain.
Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay.
And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times.
And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups.
I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen.
Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game.
And if he wants it to be popular or niche.
I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking.
You mean you see a corrupt player getting more corruption when is forced to kill a green in self defense as griefing?
Independent of the question above, I have one more idea. Maybe was mentioned and I missed it.
I see on wiki:
Non-combatants entering an open world battleground (PvP event) are automatically flagged as combatants and remain flagged for a period of time after leaving that battleground.[10]
T = period of time after leaving that battleground
Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would get no more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after T elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away?
Because after T elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them.
I assume T is 5 or more minutes.
I see defending oneself by fighting back regardless of ones status as a form of gameplay that shouldn't be punished in any way.
And I guess that could work if I'm reading that correctly? You'd still need a way to differentiate those greens from greens that aren't attacking at all. I think it'd be far simpler to just apply the 4th flagging status and pretty much have the same result. Unless you really think the 5 minute timer until it is allowed is necessary?
Of course to differentiate the green who hunt and attacks first from another who is attacked, a flag is needed.
The discussion from my PoV is about
- why the rules are as they are
- what Steven wanted
- if he made a mistake or not
- what impact onto the general game-play will be
I wouldn't mind a different game-play but if I suspect that Steven wants the game described as it is on wiki, then I will point out how the change would influence the game.
The reason why I am not attached to a certain game-play style is that Steven said "anything is subject to change". I bought the game taking into account changes too
- why the rules are as they are - The Corruption Rules are an early concept without much, if any, testing as vaknar said. But the purpose of Corruption is stated to be to deter griefing.
The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[7][8]
- what Steven wanted - Stevens wants to limit griefing as far as what he states the system is for, while still maintaining healthy risk in OWPvP not described as griefing. It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[8] – Steven Sharif
- if he made a mistake or not - So far, based on his goals, he just has it at an untested point that theoretically will hinder normal PvP in his efforts to deter griefing.
- what impact onto the general game-play will be - Potentially too much risk to consider engaging in PvP with anyone due to the prospect of gaining far better rewards by allowing a player to go corrupt killing you and then finding and killing them for a much greater gain than what you have lost, and only further increasing your chances of success each time you lose to that player in the process. This is one of my plans with the current iteration.
But back to the topic.
It could be that 5 minutes is a bit long but time to kill is long too.
I do not know why Steven decided that "period of time after leaving that battleground". But I feel the same reasons can be applied here too without knowing for sure, and even other reasons.
The wiki states
The penalties are intended to be severe enough to deter any type of spawn camping.[70]
So I think the corrupt players should be encouraged to leave the area.
The area is easy to know, basically being defined by the coordinates where the player was killed.
Green players located close enough to that spot could be considered as involved into the event (witnesses) and should have the right to chase the corrupt player to increase his corruption.
Players outside of that area, I would consider similar to Bounty Hunters but without the ability to see on the map where the corrupt player is. Because the Bounty Hunters need to have an advantage over such green players.
5 minutes after the kill occurred, I would remove the additional penalties if the corrupt defends itself.
It could be that the corrupt attacked all greens fighting NPCs and reduced their health, killed one by mistake, then it has to run. The greens may or may not follow. After 5 minutes, one of those greens or any other green could be considered an attacker, similar to a BH.
Honestly 5 minutes isnt really all that terrible, considering death runs, time to kill, etc. The time as a combatant after leaving a battleground likely just keeps players from being able to jump out of the battleground zone to avoid being hit by participants, its eliminating an exploit.
And Spawn Camping is an act of griefing as I have said many times. If your entire reason of gaining corruption in the first place was to claim an area(not griefing), that gets rid of that very viable PvP interaction. Continuing to kill a player who isn't fighting back would inevitably provide a large amount of corruption with the changes I have suggested, giving the intended results. However, should that non-combatant engage after only being killed a couple of times, the fight is mostly as intended for a legitimate PvP encounter, barring the chance the non-combatant would have normally fought back but instead wants to get 4x loot and a stat advantage. But it is entirely feasible for that non-combatant to not engage at all and give more corruption if the attacking player chooses to continue killing that player and pass the threshold from PvP into griefing, significantly hindering themselves further.
And I honestly don't see any benefit for overall PvP if anyone is punished for defending against an attack. My suggestion simply protects non-combatants from combatants who would possibly use corrupted players as bait, while still allowing corrupted players to actually defend themselves when someone else is seeking out PvP. I don't see how this is bad in any circumstance when everyone involved in the situation is actively choosing to PvP at this point.
Comments
A plan can sound stupid, but if it works...
You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Everyone is green by default. Unless on a battleground, everyone return to green less than 2 minutes after an engagement.
-twirling intensifies-
A green who attacks a red and dies probably deserves it, as red players gain a debuff that saps some stats, stacking with the people they kill.
Aye, which is why I highlighted the flaw in their point.
In my suggestions I also clarified that it'd be fine for the attacking green to recieves 50% penalties when dying to a corrupted as long as they attacked the corrupted player and had the 4th flagging status.
Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical.
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt.
But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
Not knowing the type of loot could be applied to caravans too. But for some reason the caravans have an indicator to show if they carry valuable cargo.
You keep mentioning griefing but becoming corrupt is the first step of becoming a griefer yourself. You didn't mentioned the griefing part in the OP. Just that you do not want to get more corruption.
The thing is that once you kill a green, it will be reasonable to not kill a 2nd one to avoid corruption increase.
So you will be in control at maintaining a low corruption and stay invisible to bounty hunters while killing constantly other players:
Players with a high enough corruption score will be visible on the world and mini maps.
And you will also not run away because you will never attack.
You will stay near a spot and farm NPCs and clean the corruption.
With the current mechanics players at NPC spawns will just try to lower each other's health and let the NPC deal the killing blow. But mistakes can happen and the corrupt player will have to flee.
Else as soon as a new player comes, he has to kill him.
But with your change, you don't care. You can just stay and farm. Whoever wants to chase you away is killed (in self defense) and you continue killing NPCs.
But that seems to be against Steven's wish:
The penalties are intended to be severe enough to deter any type of spawn camping.[53]
The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged.
You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there.
If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
I am indifferent to whether or not caravans actually show what they are carrying, but those are also much grander events than just someone out gathering.
And yes, I have mentioned several times that I believe there should be variables and stages for corruption to offer the first bit as a warning while still providing minor debuffs, while rapidly increasing the penalties once the threshold for griefing parameters are met. You'd still have to go work the early minor bits off, offering players respite from that player, and spacing PvP out, deterring griefing. And if they continue to the point of actually griefing, they'd be much worse off as intended, properly being punished for actions that can be considered griefing.
And while I never used the word griefing in my OP, it was implied.
And my whole point was because defending yourself is just PvP. You're already weaker, no sense in exponential increase in penalties for fighting back against a player who chose to engage you.
The time to work off 1-3 kills just needs to be reasonable. If you are only able to kill a few non-combatants an hour due to having to work it off, not only are you on the map for that long, but if youre working it off, you've placed a cooldown on that player going out to kill non-combatants as well. Yet again preventing Stevens definition of griefing, but also not punishing PvP. Even if this is all you did, you'd be giving enough respite for non-combatants to go on playing without being camped. You have the time they are getting their couple kills within the allotted time span, added to the time it takes to work it off, and you have your solid baseline for a non-griefing corrupted player, which I think should be roughly 30 minutes per kill, up to about 3 kills total before you start to really get the heavier punishment, at which point I would start ramping up to hours per kill, and higher stat dampening. But yea, maintaining low corruption is essentially spacing kills out to allow players to play without being camped. Also I would add that I think you should have to stay at your highest point of corruption achieved until you reach zero, that way you dont slowly become stronger as you become less corrupt after going on a spree.
Running away or not is determined by whether or not the fight is manageable or not. Non-combatants already dont get affected by CC, so they have the advantage of chasing, and if the non-combatants came without enough firepower, the faults on them for engaging. Either way, thats an act of PvP, and should not contribute to griefing penalties when defended against.
And if I am not attacking non-combatants during this time, isn't that a good thing for the non-combatants?
I still care with the change, because any non-combatant can watch and wait for an opportunity. I am already weakened, so if that player really wants me to die, they can jump me if I pull too many mobs or let my health get too low, its on them if I manage to come out as the winner. Theyd have to engage first to make it where I dont gain corruption. Otherwise, theyre fine, and if I attack? I would gain more corruption, and be punished accordingly if I meet the parameters of griefing after the kill. And theres also the fact that I still drop 4x as much loot, which would definitely make me care.
The penalties are intended to be severe enough to deter any type of spawn camping.[53]
Indeed, and spawn camping is what? Griefing... It's Griefing. Those severe penalties are all meant for griefing. Not PvP.
lol I know right. Nah it's fine and good even to debate these things. We've been doing it for years here about all kinds of things.
The debate here in this thread about a 4th flagging status is very valid imo. Reds not being able to kill aggressive greens attacking them without gaining additional corruption - this being the way it is has a very specific effect. That effect is that a red is compelled to flee almost always. Couple that effect with a red's inability to CC aggressive greens in order to flee, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize it's not really about being logical, moreso just "fuck reds."
That appears to me to be intended and kinda just the way it is. But it's worthy of debate. But putting all of that aside, the general tuning of the corruption/flagging system, how much open world pvx should be in our open world pvx game etc - I think the majority of the current backers are a lot closer to each other in how they think it should be than it appears.
We just don't have anything solid in our hands to debate, we don't have the game. We don't have a starting point of being able to point at anything tangible and say yo this is too harsh or yo this is too lenient.
And that's what I care more about, the general tuning of the system. Do we have sufficient room to pvx in a pvx game. The specific "effect' I talked about above is part of that tuning. But it is also a standalone effect that is neither neccessary nor unwarranted. Could go either way, worthy of debate.
Lots of words and I don't think I really even said anything hahah
The 2nd paragraph
But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it?
I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki?
I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics.
Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green.
And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt.
Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby.
Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away.
Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed.
As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added.
To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier.
The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants.
If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore.
It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain.
Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
What about just having a Green character who attacks a Red first receive a sort of debuff or maybe "Tag" would be a better word.
This would only serve as a purpose to free the Red Player to defend himself and free him of further corruption/penalties. Any player who attacks a red first stays green.
It would apply to any player who attacks a Red first. You would not receive the Tag if the Red Player killed you as a Green, a sort of revenge system and it could have a 15 minute timer on it. Might also prevent some griefing because that player will be deincentivized to kill you over and over. So exactly as it works now. The main goal of preventing other players pushing that Red player into further corruption despite trying to work it off.
That way you can maintain the criminal system. Can't really think of another draw back besides Reds trying to provoke Greens to attack them first. That could go both ways though. It would further promote PVP too.
Far as I can see it would operate more like a duel since if other players attack that green player and he dies would become Red and gain corruption.
We look forward to seeing players interact with all of the systems! Flagging, in particular, is exciting since there wasn't much testing of it in Alpha One!
I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay.
And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times.
And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups.
I'll do my best to break everything I can so the end-product has the least amount of flaws possible
I have difficulties to estimate how many people accept that ganking is not griefing.
I searched the forum for 'ganking' and 2nd link I see was posted by @Vaknar himself
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/53243/wwyd-ganking-a-player/p1
The comments are interesting
I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen.
Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game.
And if he wants it to be popular or niche.
Even tho Ashes' corruption is currently harsher than Lineage 2's karma, L2 didn't had chances to drop mats from non-combatants/combatants nor the benefit of losing less xp/mats that combatant's death provides.
While i believe PKing will probably be reasonably less prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2, i do believe Combatant-on-combatant violence will be quite more prevalent in Ashes than it was in L2 (on land, not even considering the Lawless Open Seas).
Aren't we all sinners?
I simply use Steven's own definition of griefing, and the entire design pitch of the game. The fact that i agree with it is irrelevant. You can consider ganking griefing as much as you'd like, it doesn't mean it is defined as such in the game. If it was, there wouldn't be OWPvP, because you could consider any OWPvP as ganking.
It should definitely get tested, but I will always point out ways I plan to break things before I play if it speeds up the devs work and maintains intent on gameplay.
It may very well not be what Intrepid wants, or it could very well have given Steven an "oh shit he's right" moment. We likely won't know, but if I see something I don't think lines up with what Steven has been pitching, I'm happy to point it out and debate it.
Edit: I still like to think I was responsible for Open Sea PvP happening
I get your idea, it's a reasonable mindset and might end up being something more fuctiontional and desirable for Ashes than it would be in L2 which is the main point of reference.
As for the Lawless Open Seas, i expected it way before it was announced for Ashes due to ArcheAge's Open Seas and its relation to the naval combat inspiration for Ashes.
Aren't we all sinners?
Fair point, but it was very coincidentally relative to when I was posting a lot about how fun open sea PvP would be. Just sayin
You mean you see a corrupt player getting more corruption when is forced to kill a green in self defense as griefing?
Independent of the question above, I have one more idea. Maybe was mentioned and I missed it.
I see on wiki:
Non-combatants entering an open world battleground (PvP event) are automatically flagged as combatants and remain flagged for a period of time after leaving that battleground.[10]
T = period of time after leaving that battleground
Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would get no more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after T elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away?
Because after T elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them.
I assume T is 5 or more minutes.
I see defending oneself by fighting back regardless of ones status as a form of gameplay that shouldn't be punished in any way.
And I guess that could work if I'm reading that correctly? You'd still need a way to differentiate those greens from greens that aren't attacking at all. I think it'd be far simpler to just apply the 4th flagging status and pretty much have the same result. Unless you really think the 5 minute timer until it is allowed is necessary?
Nobody disagrees that continuous PKing of greens that don't fight back ought to be additionally punished, but if a green consents to a fight, killing them as a red is not griefing any moreso than killing a purple as a purple, and therefore should not be penalized. "Extra corruption for killing PvP-consented greens after having gained corruption is part of the punishment" is nothing more than a biased PvEer perspective and a desire to never see any PKing, which is not what Steven wants? PKing can be easily reduced by increasing the usual penalty, without completely messing with the people who ever dared PKing someone.
Specific penalties for a crime make sense. More of the same penalty for no additional crime does not.
PvEers will not play this game.
Steven explains that the reason is a "fun cat-and-mouse" game and that the the corrupted player's main way to get rid of of corruption is through death. He wants to gradually increase the chance of the corrupt player to die, if he doesn't run away:
Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties. Where this changes is when a Combatant kills a Non-Combatant. In this case, the Combatant is Corrupt, and acquires a Corruption Score (which is accrued based on a number of different parameters, including the level differential of their freshly slain victim). This Corruption Score can be worked off with effort through a few mechanics, but the primary means of getting rid of it is through death.
While a player is marked as Corrupt, they may be attacked by both Combatants and Non-Combatants. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player, the non-combatant will not flag as a combatant. We also have some other ideas that we haven’t formalized yet that will allow players to participate in what we feel could be a fun cat-and-mouse part of the game. As an example, the location of these corrupt players will be displayed on the map, if you have the Bounty Hunter title,
The quote is from 2017 but the rules were not changes over these 7 years.
Then it would become a rigid rule, easily leading to opt-in PvP system.
I prefer gradual transitions from a state to another.
But Steven made the rules.
Of course to differentiate the green who hunt and attacks first from another who is attacked, a flag is needed.
The discussion from my PoV is about
- why the rules are as they are
- what Steven wanted
- if he made a mistake or not
- what impact onto the general game-play will be
I wouldn't mind a different game-play but if I suspect that Steven wants the game described as it is on wiki, then I will point out how the change would influence the game.
The reason why I am not attached to a certain game-play style is that Steven said "anything is subject to change". I bought the game taking into account changes too
But back to the topic.
It could be that 5 minutes is a bit long but time to kill is long too.
I do not know why Steven decided that "period of time after leaving that battleground". But I feel the same reasons can be applied here too without knowing for sure, and even other reasons.
The wiki states
The penalties are intended to be severe enough to deter any type of spawn camping.[70]
So I think the corrupt players should be encouraged to leave the area.
The area is easy to know, basically being defined by the coordinates where the player was killed.
Green players located close enough to that spot could be considered as involved into the event (witnesses) and should have the right to chase the corrupt player to increase his corruption.
Players outside of that area, I would consider similar to Bounty Hunters but without the ability to see on the map where the corrupt player is. Because the Bounty Hunters need to have an advantage over such green players.
5 minutes after the kill occurred, I would remove the additional penalties if the corrupt defends itself.
It could be that the corrupt attacked all greens fighting NPCs and reduced their health, killed one by mistake, then it has to run. The greens may or may not follow. After 5 minutes, one of those greens or any other green could be considered an attacker, similar to a BH.
PvEers, especially PvE griefers, will have a field day in AoC if the corruption system remains as is.
The chance of the corrupted player dying is already plentily increased by the fact that they're a criminal that on death will drop tons of resources, possibly a gear piece. Therefore people will have incentive to hunt them down, which is fine. Not allowing them to defend themselves against their hunters without getting penalized additionally? That's bullshit.
What?
That quote is indeed from a long time ago, and while relevant, I believe the "cat and mouse" idea sort of goes out the window with the later addition of non-combatants not being affected by crowd-control effects. That basically makes escape impossible unless you're able to fly away or disappear altogether.
And in regards to your gradual transition comment, that is exactly what I have been suggesting with having early PKs for corruption be much less punishing than repeated ones. It separates normal OWPvP engagements from griefing.
- why the rules are as they are - The Corruption Rules are an early concept without much, if any, testing as vaknar said. But the purpose of Corruption is stated to be to deter griefing.
The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[7][8]
- what Steven wanted - Stevens wants to limit griefing as far as what he states the system is for, while still maintaining healthy risk in OWPvP not described as griefing.
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[8] – Steven Sharif
- if he made a mistake or not - So far, based on his goals, he just has it at an untested point that theoretically will hinder normal PvP in his efforts to deter griefing.
- what impact onto the general game-play will be - Potentially too much risk to consider engaging in PvP with anyone due to the prospect of gaining far better rewards by allowing a player to go corrupt killing you and then finding and killing them for a much greater gain than what you have lost, and only further increasing your chances of success each time you lose to that player in the process. This is one of my plans with the current iteration.
Honestly 5 minutes isnt really all that terrible, considering death runs, time to kill, etc. The time as a combatant after leaving a battleground likely just keeps players from being able to jump out of the battleground zone to avoid being hit by participants, its eliminating an exploit.
And Spawn Camping is an act of griefing as I have said many times. If your entire reason of gaining corruption in the first place was to claim an area(not griefing), that gets rid of that very viable PvP interaction. Continuing to kill a player who isn't fighting back would inevitably provide a large amount of corruption with the changes I have suggested, giving the intended results. However, should that non-combatant engage after only being killed a couple of times, the fight is mostly as intended for a legitimate PvP encounter, barring the chance the non-combatant would have normally fought back but instead wants to get 4x loot and a stat advantage. But it is entirely feasible for that non-combatant to not engage at all and give more corruption if the attacking player chooses to continue killing that player and pass the threshold from PvP into griefing, significantly hindering themselves further.
And I honestly don't see any benefit for overall PvP if anyone is punished for defending against an attack. My suggestion simply protects non-combatants from combatants who would possibly use corrupted players as bait, while still allowing corrupted players to actually defend themselves when someone else is seeking out PvP. I don't see how this is bad in any circumstance when everyone involved in the situation is actively choosing to PvP at this point.