And as far as deaths causing loss of "sub" time. I know a lot of people don't like it, and there is no problem with that.
This is one of the things that draws me to CoE though, so I hope it doesn't change
I want the risk. I want my deaths to mean something. I want to feel like I have skin in the game. I want to feel like my actions matter and that taking a risk in the game can have real consequence. To me it makes it more fun
That's why I ran through Diablo 3 with a glass cannon wizard on Hardcore. Because I want that rush, that feeling that I need to be careful and that my choices/mistakes have an impact.
It's also why I quit playing UO, not just because I dislike the monthly sub fee but also because in my opinion Trammel absolutely ruined that game. Creating a PvE only version of the UO world took away ALL the risk of taming dangerous animals or fighting high lvl mobs because you no longer had to worry about that "other guy" stabbing you in the back
I want the risk, I look forward to it. And I also understand that not everyone is like me
So, wait, hold on. For my own clarity, I want to understand if the following is true or not:
You buy a Spark of Life, that is set for 12 Elyria months or real world months?
When that lifespan is up, you have to buy a new spark of life to continue, which means other players can effect how long I can play this game, as them killing me reduces my playtime by a certain amount?
12 Real world months. Reduced by a varied amount (minimum 2 days) every time you die. The amount of life you lose depends on both your fame and the fame of any people you have killed.
Developer posts have said that dying on a battlefield for instance would give you a 4x death penalty.
Developer posts have said that the more famous you are the more days you will lose. An example given shows 7 tiers of fame running from Unknown to Legendary. The penalties range from 1x to 32x. If you take a mid tier it indicates a 4x multiplier.
So if you are mid-tier fame and die on the battlefield one time.. it should be 2 days X 4 X 4 or... 32 days lost. It has also been stated that if you KILL someone that is famous you will also get a death penalty multiplier.
So yes... if someone griefs you.. you will lose life. You will also lose life if you go and hunt them down for revenge. This is why I call it a griefer's paradise. They will cause you to have a monetary impact when they kill you. And the kicker is that your character stays in game when you log. So you can be killed while you are at work...
Now the info on this is scattered over random forum posts and Discord statements so it could be out of date. Anyone can correct the math if things have changed... but the bottom line is that YES.. if someone kills you... it will cause you to lose your subscription time/life.
From what I understand there will be a justice system. With this justice system you can get "Bounty Tokens". With these tokens you can hunt down the murderer
This mechanic, like all of the mechanics has not yet been tested. So if you're looking for specifics we'll have to wait until we can test out the game to see how that works
Also, killing in war is a "legal" or "sanctioned" kill. Which means you suffer no penalty for killing your foe on the battlefield. Unlike if you were to kill someone out in the "wilds" as a brigand. There is a big difference between Murder and War
Edited to also highlight the "starting over"
You start over with your skills, however, if you have an "heir" you retain all of your possessions and your lands. So you aren't exactly starting over with 10 iron ingots in your pocket if your are a blacksmith for instance (why do we always use a smith?)
You would be starting over with the stockpile your original character left, the house you had, the shop you had and everything else in between. Only your "skill" drops back down (all the way to 0 or slightly higher based on where you were at? Who knows, this mechanic, like all of them, is still in the works) and then you can retrain your smithing faster
Can you link the info related to not getting a penalty for killing a foe on the battlefield? The one post I have is from Caspien himself and says the penalty is 4x base life loss. As I said in my post, his stuff is all over the place so I don’t doubt you that it may have changed. I’d like to read it.
To be clear, you are saying that killing, not knocking unconscious, will have no negative impact in a war? Does that extend to dying as well?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"Can you link the info related to not getting a penalty for killing a foe on the battlefield? The one post I have is from Caspien himself and says the penalty is 4x base life loss. As I said in my post, his stuff is all over the place so I don’t doubt you that it may have changed. I’d like to read it."
I'm looking for a source right now.
As far as the 4x multiplier that is for if you "die" on the battlefield, not if you "kill" on the battlefield. And again I'm searching for that source
This is a source that has some added info including "Death Toll Caps", "Looting" and also includes that 4x multiplier for dying on the battlefield:
I must admit I'm having trouble finding the source for not being penalized for "killing" on the battlefield. However, in that link I've provided it only mentions battlefileds in the context on if you die:
"The second toll cap we're looking at is during wartime. If you're on a battlefield and get coup de graced you're likely to get killed again as soon as you wake up. I mean, it's a battlefield. So one thing we are doing is capping it to one toll per 10 hours. However, battlefields are dangerous places and we don't want people to take up arms frivolously. As a result, the first death on a battle field will likely come with a 4x multiplier. The end result is that people will try like hell not to die, but when they inevitably do (most likely more than once), it won't come with any additional penalties"
I'm guessing it's because killing an "enemy combatant" should/would/could be understood as not being "murder". With the definition of murder being the unlawful killing of a person. If you were to suffer a penalty for killing on the battlefield that would just... not make sense and I would absolutely start a petition to have that changed
That'd be like charging one of our US soldiers for murder every time they legally killed a Nazi on a battlefield during WWII
So you are hypothesizing that killing on the battlefield is penalty free or you know this?
If only the person being killed is penalized it’s going to kick the griefing up even higher.
Make sure you slit the throat of everyone down boys!! Send em to Hell!!!
Of yeah... we are at war so I’ll just come in tonight and assassinate all your afk crafters penalty free...
That's an excellent point Slap!
If I'm not mistaken, everything we discuss is hypothesizing at this point though, right?
I also want to point out the hypothesized 10 hour Death Toll-Cap in war. So if you get killed over and over and over and over during a battle within a 10 hour time frame, you only suffer that 4x death penalty on your 1st death. Which will help mitigate griefing
I can't wait to test out these mechanics though that's for sure!
So if dying on the battlefield is where the penalty is heaviest... who will actually put themselves forward to fight for their leaders? I'm beginning to foresee money drives that groups will call "Funding the War Effort" so they can help alleviate the overall cost of deaths.
With the grand scale at which this game is aiming for, the idea is complete nonsense, and I hope someone at SBS has enough backbone to say so.
I suppose I should say "In my opinion" to preempt the fun of explaining just that.
So if dying on the battlefield is where the penalty is heaviest... who will actually put themselves forward to fight for their leaders? I'm beginning to foresee money drives that groups will call "Funding the War Effort" so they can help alleviate the overall cost of deaths.
With the grand scale at which this game is aiming for, the idea is complete nonsense, and I hope someone at SBS has enough backbone to say so.
I suppose I should say "In my opinion" to preempt the fun of explaining just that.
They are afraid. As evidenced in the other thread linked on here simply expressing doubt about anything leads to getting attacked and massive downvotes.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
So you are hypothesizing that killing on the battlefield is penalty free or you know this?
If only the person being killed is penalized it’s going to kick the griefing up even higher.
Make sure you slit the throat of everyone down boys!! Send em to Hell!!!
Of yeah... we are at war so I’ll just come in tonight and assassinate all your afk crafters penalty free...
Even if there is a heavy penalty for the victor, what is to keep a group of real life people from having one character being the designated butcher. In any fight, it would be that character's job to go around and coup the fallen, so all the penalty is collected on a single character, leaving all the others to commit all the atrocities they can wish for.
Has anyone heard of how long the victim has to push the coup button? That's got to impact how long it will take to revive and resurrect a defeated character.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If there were a penalty for the victor in a duel on the battlefield then smart armies would just designate one guy to go around cutting throats after their comrades knock people out
But how would the game differentiate between what is a legal kill and an illegal kill?
So you are hypothesizing that killing on the battlefield is penalty free or you know this?
If only the person being killed is penalized it’s going to kick the griefing up even higher.
Make sure you slit the throat of everyone down boys!! Send em to Hell!!!
Of yeah... we are at war so I’ll just come in tonight and assassinate all your afk crafters penalty free...
Even if there is a heavy penalty for the victor, what is to keep a group of real life people from having one character being the designated butcher. In any fight, it would be that character's job to go around and coup the fallen, so all the penalty is collected on a single character, leaving all the others to commit all the atrocities they can wish for.
Has anyone heard of how long the victim has to push the coup button? That's got to impact how long it will take to revive and resurrect a defeated character.
I would hope there would be some sort of rating system. Something that will weigh the difference in gear/strength/skill etc to determine whether you should be punished from dying at their hand. That would be an ideal counter-measure to griefing.
If there were a penalty for the victor in a duel on the battlefield then smart armies would just designate one guy to go around cutting throats after their comrades knock people out
But how would the game differentiate between what is a legal kill and an illegal kill?
Too many loose ends like that that haven't been tied down. Maybe a senior development team with years of experience and a couple of successful games behind them maybe. But this crew? There's just too much that shows me that they haven't thought some things through completely. An inexperienced team without a clear plan is cause for worry.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
And as far as deaths causing loss of "sub" time. I know a lot of people don't like it, and there is no problem with that.
This is one of the things that draws me to CoE though, so I hope it doesn't change
I want the risk. I want my deaths to mean something. I want to feel like I have skin in the game. I want to feel like my actions matter and that taking a risk in the game can have real consequence. To me it makes it more fun
That's why I ran through Diablo 3 with a glass cannon wizard on Hardcore. Because I want that rush, that feeling that I need to be careful and that my choices/mistakes have an impact.
It's also why I quit playing UO, not just because I dislike the monthly sub fee but also because in my opinion Trammel absolutely ruined that game. Creating a PvE only version of the UO world took away ALL the risk of taming dangerous animals or fighting high lvl mobs because you no longer had to worry about that "other guy" stabbing you in the back
I want the risk, I look forward to it. And I also understand that not everyone is like me
Couldn't you just play on the PvP side for the risk...oh wait you liked ganking the people that wanted to play on the PvE server and when they were gone so was your fun....
And as far as deaths causing loss of "sub" time. I know a lot of people don't like it, and there is no problem with that.
This is one of the things that draws me to CoE though, so I hope it doesn't change
I want the risk. I want my deaths to mean something. I want to feel like I have skin in the game. I want to feel like my actions matter and that taking a risk in the game can have real consequence. To me it makes it more fun
That's why I ran through Diablo 3 with a glass cannon wizard on Hardcore. Because I want that rush, that feeling that I need to be careful and that my choices/mistakes have an impact.
It's also why I quit playing UO, not just because I dislike the monthly sub fee but also because in my opinion Trammel absolutely ruined that game. Creating a PvE only version of the UO world took away ALL the risk of taming dangerous animals or fighting high lvl mobs because you no longer had to worry about that "other guy" stabbing you in the back
I want the risk, I look forward to it. And I also understand that not everyone is like me
Couldn't you just play on the PvP side for the risk...oh wait you liked ganking the people that wanted to play on the PvE server and when they were gone so was your fun....
I can see why you would infer this for sure.
Rest assured though a ganker I was not. I didn't camp high level mobs and pk. That's not my style. I hunted Reds. And when Trammel became a thing there were far fewer Reds to hunt. You could spend hours in Felucca on UO and not come across another soul because it was abandoned
People turned to the faction system which was ok for a little while
Trammel also made everything 100x more expensive because farming gold just became too easy, again there was just no more risk
The great and mightily smart Snipehunter decided to weigh in and give us some insight for the "cdg" on the battlefield discussion
Direct quote:
"So, I'm not going to answer this question just yet. Let me ask a few ethical questions, instead:
Should executing your opponent be an honorable thing to do on a battlefield?
Is the goal of war really to kill the enemy or is to force a resolution to a conflict in your side's favor?
Now, in most battles, you want to remove the enemy combatants from the battlefield, which does mean killing them, but it doesn't have to mean that in CoE thanks to the way our death system works. We could, for example, extend the incapacitation time in battlefields so that you don't have to CDG someone to ensure they can't return in time to rejoin the battle.
What I'm getting at with these questions is that our system means there are ethical implications to delivering a CDG, even in war: You can murder that enemy so you know they aren't coming back anytime soon, but should you? Are you really the hero, when you could have simply incapacitated them to accomplish much the same effect?
An interesting topic, I view this as part of the "no quarter" debate. In modern warfare, since the 1907 Hague convention it has been especially forbidden to declare no quarter will be given in international armed conflicts.
Of course this has not been true for most of history, even the God of the Bible ordered the total destruction of Israel's enemies, down the the last man, woman, child, livestock and posessions. (He was very thorough and specific, punishing the tribes when they failed to fully comply with the order.)
So in a modern video game, probably OK to go with a no quarter policy which probably more in keeping with medieval policies.
But if part of formal armed combat, there really shouldn't be punishments to either side in terms of character life expectancy, should be enough you lost your stuff.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
The great and mightily smart Snipehunter decided to weigh in and give us some insight for the "cdg" on the battlefield discussion
Direct quote:
"So, I'm not going to answer this question just yet. Let me ask a few ethical questions, instead:
Should executing your opponent be an honorable thing to do on a battlefield?
Is the goal of war really to kill the enemy or is to force a resolution to a conflict in your side's favor?
Now, in most battles, you want to remove the enemy combatants from the battlefield, which does mean killing them, but it doesn't have to mean that in CoE thanks to the way our death system works. We could, for example, extend the incapacitation time in battlefields so that you don't have to CDG someone to ensure they can't return in time to rejoin the battle.
What I'm getting at with these questions is that our system means there are ethical implications to delivering a CDG, even in war: You can murder that enemy so you know they aren't coming back anytime soon, but should you? Are you really the hero, when you could have simply incapacitated them to accomplish much the same effect?
Also.. pre-determined battlegrounds? WTF? On Tuesday from 7-8 here is the box you guys can fight in? Will there be signups? I wonder if these guys have ever seriously played a territory control PvP game...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The coup de grace on the battlefield makes sense if your enemy were only incapacitated for a short while.
If the incapacitation were extended during a pitched battle then I wouldn't personally see any reason to kill.
Unless of course they were carrying some very nice things that I wouldn't get otherwise, in that scenario.... Sorry, not sorry
In no war.. ever.. have I heard of soldiers knocking each other out. The point of war is to cause pain to your enemy until he submits. If the “loser” suffers no ill effects then he won’t hesitate to come back next time. The point of the CDG would not just be to cut his life but also loot him. If you take his armor he has to go buy more. If resources are supposed to be finite and hard to get then taking someone’s chainmail will hurt.
Knocking each other out is just silly.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
The coup de grace on the battlefield makes sense if your enemy were only incapacitated for a short while.
If the incapacitation were extended during a pitched battle then I wouldn't personally see any reason to kill.
Unless of course they were carrying some very nice things that I wouldn't get otherwise, in that scenario.... Sorry, not sorry
In no war.. ever.. have I heard of soldiers knocking each other out. The point of war is to cause pain to your enemy until he submits. If the “loser” suffers no ill effects then he won’t hesitate to come back next time. The point of the CDG would not just be to cut his life but also loot him. If you take his armor he has to go buy more. If resources are supposed to be finite and hard to get then taking someone’s chainmail will hurt.
Knocking each other out is just silly.
That's true, taking their armor especially if it's valuable would cost that person dearly. With the inventory mechanics though you can't carry a whole lot. CoE has a WYSIWYG type of inventory (what you see is what you get). So you can't lug around severally weapons and 3 suits of armor
You can read more in the latest news that actually just got released about this very topic here:
The great and mightily smart Snipehunter decided to weigh in and give us some insight for the "cdg" on the battlefield discussion
Direct quote:
"So, I'm not going to answer this question just yet. Let me ask a few ethical questions, instead:
Should executing your opponent be an honorable thing to do on a battlefield?
Is the goal of war really to kill the enemy or is to force a resolution to a conflict in your side's favor?
Now, in most battles, you want to remove the enemy combatants from the battlefield, which does mean killing them, but it doesn't have to mean that in CoE thanks to the way our death system works. We could, for example, extend the incapacitation time in battlefields so that you don't have to CDG someone to ensure they can't return in time to rejoin the battle.
What I'm getting at with these questions is that our system means there are ethical implications to delivering a CDG, even in war: You can murder that enemy so you know they aren't coming back anytime soon, but should you? Are you really the hero, when you could have simply incapacitated them to accomplish much the same effect?
Also.. pre-determined battlegrounds? WTF? On Tuesday from 7-8 here is the box you guys can fight in? Will there be signups? I wonder if these guys have ever seriously played a territory control PvP game...
EVE does. From very narrow windows of attack (4 hrs) which are determined by the defenders, to requiring at least two assaults a day or so apart to take a shielded target down.
Even CCP knows surprise attacks at a time when most defenders aren't around is a terrible idea.
Also, for really big fleet fights alliances schedule the day, time and place and CCP sets up special hardware to manage the heavy load.
They also have mechanics where if a corporations Citadel is destroyed their belongings are evacd to a station in low sec.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
Also here is a link to the "Store Points" I referenced earlier:
https://chroniclesofelyria.gamepedia.com/Story_Points
And as far as deaths causing loss of "sub" time. I know a lot of people don't like it, and there is no problem with that.
This is one of the things that draws me to CoE though, so I hope it doesn't change
I want the risk. I want my deaths to mean something. I want to feel like I have skin in the game. I want to feel like my actions matter and that taking a risk in the game can have real consequence. To me it makes it more fun
That's why I ran through Diablo 3 with a glass cannon wizard on Hardcore. Because I want that rush, that feeling that I need to be careful and that my choices/mistakes have an impact.
It's also why I quit playing UO, not just because I dislike the monthly sub fee but also because in my opinion Trammel absolutely ruined that game. Creating a PvE only version of the UO world took away ALL the risk of taming dangerous animals or fighting high lvl mobs because you no longer had to worry about that "other guy" stabbing you in the back
I want the risk, I look forward to it. And I also understand that not everyone is like me
To be clear, you are saying that killing, not knocking unconscious, will have no negative impact in a war? Does that extend to dying as well?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
This is a source that has some added info including "Death Toll Caps", "Looting" and also includes that 4x multiplier for dying on the battlefield:
https://chroniclesofelyria.gamepedia.com/Death#Grievous_Wounds.2C_Coups_de_Gr.C3.A2ce.2C_and_Spirit_Walking
I must admit I'm having trouble finding the source for not being penalized for "killing" on the battlefield. However, in that link I've provided it only mentions battlefileds in the context on if you die:
"The second toll cap we're looking at is during wartime. If you're on a battlefield and get coup de graced you're likely to get killed again as soon as you wake up. I mean, it's a battlefield. So one thing we are doing is capping it to one toll per 10 hours. However, battlefields are dangerous places and we don't want people to take up arms frivolously. As a result, the first death on a battle field will likely come with a 4x multiplier. The end result is that people will try like hell not to die, but when they inevitably do (most likely more than once), it won't come with any additional penalties"
I'm guessing it's because killing an "enemy combatant" should/would/could be understood as not being "murder". With the definition of murder being the unlawful killing of a person. If you were to suffer a penalty for killing on the battlefield that would just... not make sense and I would absolutely start a petition to have that changed
That'd be like charging one of our US soldiers for murder every time they legally killed a Nazi on a battlefield during WWII
If only the person being killed is penalized it’s going to kick the griefing up even higher.
Make sure you slit the throat of everyone down boys!! Send em to Hell!!!
Of yeah... we are at war so I’ll just come in tonight and assassinate all your afk crafters penalty free...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
That's an excellent point Slap!
If I'm not mistaken, everything we discuss is hypothesizing at this point though, right?
I also want to point out the hypothesized 10 hour Death Toll-Cap in war. So if you get killed over and over and over and over during a battle within a 10 hour time frame, you only suffer that 4x death penalty on your 1st death. Which will help mitigate griefing
I can't wait to test out these mechanics though that's for sure!
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
With the grand scale at which this game is aiming for, the idea is complete nonsense, and I hope someone at SBS has enough backbone to say so.
I suppose I should say "In my opinion" to preempt the fun of explaining just that.
If anyone fancies it can you send me a message when this thread brings up something new.
many thanks
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Has anyone heard of how long the victim has to push the coup button? That's got to impact how long it will take to revive and resurrect a defeated character.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If there were a penalty for the victor in a duel on the battlefield then smart armies would just designate one guy to go around cutting throats after their comrades knock people out
But how would the game differentiate between what is a legal kill and an illegal kill?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Couldn't you just play on the PvP side for the risk...oh wait you liked ganking the people that wanted to play on the PvE server and when they were gone so was your fun....
Rest assured though a ganker I was not. I didn't camp high level mobs and pk. That's not my style. I hunted Reds. And when Trammel became a thing there were far fewer Reds to hunt. You could spend hours in Felucca on UO and not come across another soul because it was abandoned
People turned to the faction system which was ok for a little while
Trammel also made everything 100x more expensive because farming gold just became too easy, again there was just no more risk
Direct quote:
"So, I'm not going to answer this question just yet. Let me ask a few ethical questions, instead:
Should executing your opponent be an honorable thing to do on a battlefield?
Is the goal of war really to kill the enemy or is to force a resolution to a conflict in your side's favor?
Now, in most battles, you want to remove the enemy combatants from the battlefield, which does mean killing them, but it doesn't have to mean that in CoE thanks to the way our death system works. We could, for example, extend the incapacitation time in battlefields so that you don't have to CDG someone to ensure they can't return in time to rejoin the battle.
What I'm getting at with these questions is that our system means there are ethical implications to delivering a CDG, even in war: You can murder that enemy so you know they aren't coming back anytime soon, but should you? Are you really the hero, when you could have simply incapacitated them to accomplish much the same effect?
I'm curious how you all feel about it."
You can check out the whole thread here:
http://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/24591/penalty-for-killing-on-the-battlefield?page=1#31
Of course this has not been true for most of history, even the God of the Bible ordered the total destruction of Israel's enemies, down the the last man, woman, child, livestock and posessions. (He was very thorough and specific, punishing the tribes when they failed to fully comply with the order.)
So in a modern video game, probably OK to go with a no quarter policy which probably more in keeping with medieval policies.
But if part of formal armed combat, there really shouldn't be punishments to either side in terms of character life expectancy, should be enough you lost your stuff.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Also.. pre-determined battlegrounds? WTF?
On Tuesday from 7-8 here is the box you guys can fight in? Will there be signups?
I wonder if these guys have ever seriously played a territory control PvP game...
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
If the incapacitation were extended during a pitched battle then I wouldn't personally see any reason to kill.
Unless of course they were carrying some very nice things that I wouldn't get otherwise, in that scenario.... Sorry, not sorry
Knocking each other out is just silly.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
You can read more in the latest news that actually just got released about this very topic here:
http://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/24596/production-update-a-sense-of-identity-part-ii
Edit to add:
If you think you will win the battle by a landslide it might be a good idea to bring some empty wagons to stack up all your loots!
Even CCP knows surprise attacks at a time when most defenders aren't around is a terrible idea.
Also, for really big fleet fights alliances schedule the day, time and place and CCP sets up special hardware to manage the heavy load.
They also have mechanics where if a corporations Citadel is destroyed their belongings are evacd to a station in low sec.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon