Yet Another Anti-Griefing Thread: Actual Restitution

Just to get this out of my system.

The problem I have with PK count, Corruption, or whatever, is that it has no cost if you manage to not die until Green again. Sure you can be stopped, but there's no cost.

In Elite Dangerous you rack up a huge Bounty, you finally get shot down, that money comes out of YOUR pocket. You can end up back at 'the equivalent of level 1' ship-wise if you do this (nearly no one would).

This is the only way I know of to separate 'griefers' from 'Node protector gankers' in Ashes. If you have to PAY MONEY when you kill someone who doesn't fight back, the incentive structure changes. If you have to pay more because they are low level, same deal. You could just 'not pay it' and even manage to get back to green, but you owe SOMEONE money. Don't have enough? Go into debt, sell off your gear, sit in game jail for however long, get put on probation, who knows.

If the killed player can go get restitution for you killing them because they are a member of the Node, or someone/something authorizes this, then good. As for 'known bots', no one has to auth their restitution, alternately, policies.

Anyways pick it apart if you care, figured I might as well throw it into the storm brewin' so it also disappears whenever that does.

And I guess to clarify, you only need to pay it if you want to do stuff in that Node. Otherwise you just 'have an outstanding bounty in that node' from killing someone in its vicinity. You could just leave and it would just stay in the system.

Disagree with blacklists because Alts.

Either because they reveal people's Alts, or because they don't work. Either way is bad to ME personally.

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

To be clear, you don't necessarily HAVE to pay the gold if you don't die while within the Territory of the Node, I guess.

But yeah, I'd say that's valid too. I can see the complaint. That's not quite 'picking it apart' though. If we are concerned that 'ganking needs more deterrent' then this is the one I think makes the most sense for what Ashes is trying to be.

If you don't agree that additional penalties are required, then obviously I wouldn't ask you to agree with this.

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

Right, but I was addressing 2 points.

1. If you get away with it, you don't lose gear.
2. The person you killed does not get anything back at all. If anything, if you manage to become Green again by the next time they see you, the burden is on them now.

This is all an extension of 'the general reason why games become gankboxes' which has a LOT more to do with player characters being unstoppable forces of nature that just respawn endlessly and any cost they pay for doing this can just eventually be overcome with time.

While the people they are 'hurting' never really get the BENEFIT of that cost being paid. This imbalances the situation. As long as I am willing to pay the COST of hurting another player, they can be crushed because they will never get anything back.

We have not received permission from Fantmx to share the quoted post.

I meant the other way, actually. I prefer that EVEN if someone's Alt ganks me, that I don't have a way to know their main. I don't even want the ability to blacklist at the account level in Ashes, and I would figure Intrepid won't be granting that ability.

So if I DID get ganked by NoobSlayer42069 and wanted to never sell them any cheese, I don't want a system that prevents NoobChef69420 from buying the cheese and therefore lets me know that the two are related.

Without that system, I don't think the blacklist works well. Not to mention that you could just have someone else buy stuff on their behalf since this game allows free trading.

We have not received permission from Okeydoke to share the quoted post.

You will probably not be surprised to know that I wish the system overall was less harsh so that people would be more willing to PvP, to defend their node from bots or invaders, or to just take opportunity when they get them.

But I also wish it was more in line with the core feeling that I think Ashes is going for. If Corruption turns out to be super harsh and not easily circumvented, fine. I won't be as happy because I would prefer if it was less harsh, but at least there will be less Bounty Hunters if there's no one to hunt.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Right but that wasn't something that got 'taken away', because it was just 'assumed that they would be able to'.

Whereas we have learned from the Lineage players that it was probably never going to be a thing. So if the game the system is based on had a function that was 'part of why it worked', it's not surprising that it is appearing in the current system.

If anything I'd assume that Corruption and the system is balanced around 'not being able to CC Greens' same as L2. If we're picking up the whole thing, then we pick up the whole thing, right?

That's why I only want a change that applies to the one thing that is NOT in L2. Nodes. Because Nodes CREATE a reason to 'keep paying the cost of going red', namely, sabotaging a node at the cost of a character's capacity.

How much will someone pay/sacrifice to make a rival node a miserable place to live? Let's find out in cash.

I had 2 suggestions that kinda achieved the same result as yours, except I just wanted to boost the BH system and positivize the PK counter removal quest mechanics.

I also want the corruption gain to be lower so that people have a chance to remove it before they get caught (at least at low PK counter), but I wanted the BHs to have a buffer time where they can kill the ex-PKer for free (and the ex-PKer can't flag against the BH). This would be coupled with "marked" loot that the PKer might've gotten from their victim. And the BH would then receive additional points for returning the loot to the victim (could be done through the game's system rather than through hand-to-hand trade).

Imo that would bring more positive feedback into the system, the victims would get their stuff back, the BHs would have more point in their existence even if the corruption "timer" is on the shorter side.

And as for the PK counter removal quest, I just wanted the PKers to be sent to the nodes of the people they've killed and do node-related quests there. Or the removal quest itself gives them tasks that would help out those nodes.

But we haven't heard any info on either of these particular systems yet (at least in detail) so I got no clue if my suggestions fit what Intrepid has in mind.

Azherae wrote: »

If anything I'd assume that Corruption and the system is balanced around 'not being able to CC Greens' same as L2. If we're picking up the whole thing, then we pick up the whole thing, right?

Except Steven seemingly went even harsher on the penalties than in L2 yet again. It will obviously have to be tested, but so far he's crippled that system by quite a lot. Though I understand that it might be the only way how a system like that could fly in current times.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

If anything I'd assume that Corruption and the system is balanced around 'not being able to CC Greens' same as L2. If we're picking up the whole thing, then we pick up the whole thing, right?

Except Steven seemingly went even harsher on the penalties than in L2 yet again. It will obviously have to be tested, but so far he's crippled that system by quite a lot. Though I understand that it might be the only way how a system like that could fly in current times.

Well, I'm glad to learn what you mean by this because your OWN tests when you reported back moreso indicated that it's not very much different, and there was some specifics about scaling that was practically an oversight in L2.

Basically, it very much sounded like they just fixed the L2 method so it scaled properly and was less janky about 'which XP counted for removing the Corruption'.

Maybe I misunderstood the part you and James were explaining about it though. 300xp to remove one point, but didn't scale as you got to higher levels and could get more exp. That's where I was at, as of your last explanations.

It MIGHT be 'oh we went way harsher', but it might also be 'we fixed it'.

We have not received permission from Okeydoke to share the quoted post.

Well I would definitely replace that, with this. Nothing screams 'let's feed our good gear to RMT' like 'them having a chance to get gear off you after you kill their bot by logging in with their army of main accounts'.

"Fun".

Azherae wrote: »

It MIGHT be 'oh we went way harsher', but it might also be 'we fixed it'.

Nah, I mean the two biggest additions/changes. Stat dampening and the (seemingly) NO CCs against greens. As others said, damage-based CCs still went through (I forgot to doublecheck that too, but oh well), while in his comment Steven said that no CCs work against greens.

And I'd be completely fine with both of those changes if only the corruption timer wasn't "significantly longer". Now, Steven would definitely need to explain in what way it is longer, because, yeah, L2's scaling was definitely trash but it also worked well with its respawn/TP system. You got just a few minutes to remove your corruption and your victim has just a few minutes to return to the same location to maybe catch you. A game of cat&mouse that becomes easier for the victim the higher the PK counter on the killer.

But in Ashes we have 2 changes that help out any and all greens to obliterate the PKer, while also a long corruption timer to justify the existence of BHs. To me that sounds a bit too rough. And depending on some details maybe even way too rough.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

It MIGHT be 'oh we went way harsher', but it might also be 'we fixed it'.

Nah, I mean the two biggest additions/changes. Stat dampening and the (seemingly) NO CCs against greens. As others said, damage-based CCs still went through (I forgot to doublecheck that too, but oh well), while in his comment Steven said that no CCs work against greens.

And I'd be completely fine with both of those changes if only the corruption timer wasn't "significantly longer". Now, Steven would definitely need to explain in what way it is longer, because, yeah, L2's scaling was definitely trash but it also worked well with its respawn/TP system. You got just a few minutes to remove your corruption and your victim has just a few minutes to return to the same location to maybe catch you. A game of cat&mouse that becomes easier for the victim the higher the PK counter on the killer.

But in Ashes we have 2 changes that help out any and all greens to obliterate the PKer, while also a long corruption timer to justify the existence of BHs. To me that sounds a bit too rough. And depending on some details maybe even way too rough.

Ok, so, to be completely clear, because this brings me all the way back to the damn beginning and I don't feel like bumping the other thread.

1. Lucky Ghost outlines a way to grief people with CC.
2. Steven says this can't be done.
3. George says 'see? that's how L2 works, this should have been obvious'
4. Therefore Lucky Ghost was wrong.

If Damage based CCs go through, it means that Lucky Ghost was right, and Steven made a change to address the part that Lucky Ghost's video was right about?

Because I was convinced by NOW that LG at LEAST had only played L2 before they changed it to 'no CCs' and therefore concluded based on old data.

Even AFTER L2's updates, Damage+CC still works, therefore making it possible to achieve the scenario presented, or not?