So the protection would be nullified as soon as they started an attack even if they didn't get the kill? Guess that works then.

_________________________________________

Tea wrote:

So the protection would be nullified as soon as they started an attack even if they didn't get the kill? Guess that works then.

Sorry I meant to say kill, not attack. Fixed.


_________________________________________

Okay I'll try a different scenario.

Persons A, B, and C decide to target a rich guy (or even someone they don't like who they want to lose more stuff) and let themselves get killed. Now the rich guy has a +100.5% drop rate and experience loss so A, B, and C respawn or log on stronger characters and take down this rich (or disliked) person. They then get double the prize off a rich person or make a "hated" player twice as weaker/poorer.

This or parts of this would be a big issue if this was to be implemented the way it is described right now.

_________________________________________

Tea wrote:

Okay I'll try a different scenario.

Persons A, B, and C decide to target a rich guy (or even someone they don't like who they want to lose more stuff) and let themselves get killed. Now the rich guy has a +100.5% drop rate and experience loss so A, B, and C respawn or log on stronger characters and take down this rich (or disliked) person. They then get double the prize off a rich person or make a "hated" player twice as weaker/poorer.

This or parts of this would be a big issue if this was to be implemented the way it is described right now.

Sounds like Rich Guy isn't too smart for carrying unengraved belongings (if that's the case) or for taking his penalty count past -3 (for engraved items).

You can't force someone to kill you and under this system there's no confusion about whether or not your target is going to wind up landing you a heavy penalty if you kill them since you'd be able to check using the who verb.



_________________________________________

Ok, I don't know if this scenario was covered yet, but what if *** A, who has the already killed soemone 3 times, and attacks another person, but that person defends themselves and kills *** A, the victim will gain all the penalties that *** A had? That seems a little unfair.

_________________________________________

Magnus Gallant wrote:

Ok, I don't know if this scenario was covered yet, but what if *** A, who has the already killed soemone 3 times, and attacks another person, but that person defends themselves and kills *** A, the victim will gain all the penalties that *** A had? That seems a little unfair.

They will only gain the regular penalty of 33.5% because it is a person without "protection". I still think it is sort of silly that you can be penalized for defending yourself and winning. Its not like everyone wants to run away from a fight.

_________________________________________

I don't see why it should cap out at 30 minutes. Other than that it sounds like a reasonable idea.

_________________________________________

30 minutes per kill was an 'off the top of my head' type number. I didn't want to put something so high that it's going to dissuade people from PvP alltogether.

Would the randomly losing an engraving on an item once your penalty reaches a certain level also be possible?

Sidenote: Maybe the penalties could only apply to kills that involve you being the hostile party, this way you aren't penalized for 'self-defense' like Tea mentioned.

It'd also be nice if hostility flags were wiped upon death.

_________________________________________

Weeabo Dean wrote:

Sidenote: Maybe the penalties could only apply to kills that involve you being the hostile party, this way you aren't penalized for 'self-defense' like Tea mentioned.

If that is possible that should fix most problems. Of course it's still upsetting you can't kill a person once without being penalized but I guess the penalty only take effect if you die...

_________________________________________

Quick reiteration:

•Punishment only applies if you are the hostile party.
•

_________________________________________

So if two people are hostile to each other in an actual battle, and not just some "ganking" of another player, whoever wins gets penalized? This really opens up a realm of "abuse" (I use the term abuse loosely in this case because some might consider it just the player's fault) if I'm understanding it right.

Player A, B, and C attack Player X, Y, Z. ABC purposely gets themselves killed all by player X, thus giving him a 100.5% penalty. Now he's ripe for the picking when they return, or if their are other players on ABC's side.

I just think that aspect is a little much especially for open battles where people are dying and if one person is in beast mode and unleashes fury (or gets all kill shots) and dies, he gets completely screwed. This is about as anti-casual player as it gets. Especially when such a mechanic can be misunderstood so easily or used against someone without even trying.

_________________________________________

I love you dean.

I'd say the one hour limit on this would be a nice start.



_________________________________________

Haze wrote:

So if two people are hostile to each other in an actual battle, and not just some "ganking" of another player, whoever wins gets penalized? This really opens up a realm of "abuse" (I use the term abuse loosely in this case because some might consider it just the player's fault) if I'm understanding it right.

Player A, B, and C attack Player X, Y, Z. ABC purposely gets themselves killed all by player X, thus giving him a 100.5% penalty. Now he's ripe for the picking when they return, or if their are other players on ABC's side.

I just think that aspect is a little much especially for open battles where people are dying and if one person is in beast mode and unleashes fury (or gets all kill shots) and dies, he gets completely screwed. This is about as anti-casual player as it gets. Especially when such a mechanic can be misunderstood so easily or used against someone without even trying.

two people can't be hostile to each other. when you check your enemies list it says hostile players and enemies. you're one or the other.

_________________________________________

reply to Dean:

Unless its been changed, I've always had a few people on both the hostile and enemy list before...

_________________________________________

yeah, that's how it's supposed to work. it's not like that for both parties involved though. if it was how would you be able to tell if someone was hostile to you?

_________________________________________

If someone is hostile to you, and you have them on your "Current Enemies" list, does this not mean it would be the same for them

????

Are you confused or something..

_________________________________________

reply to Haze:

you're confused just kill urself

_________________________________________