I was tempted to say yes, but after further thinking about it, there are other ways to prevent the abuse of the corruption system. Making all characters subject to the corruption of one might impeed other things.
I think it should be per character first. And if they keep screwing up then account
wide. doing just the character will not
prevent someone from just deleting that one and creating a new one to be a
total jerk with. And doing it account
wide is a little harsh to someone who could have just had a bad day and took it
out on someone.
It's exactly as I have thought (just look at various comments above).
People consider balancing whole corruption around griefers (meaningless continual attacking of same target), while griefers make up maybe 1% of the population. People are completely forgetting that this affects normal meaningful PvP game play as well (attacks for resources / defense of your nodes teritory / resources etc).
This is a problem with this community. The lack of foresight. And more importantly the lack of caring. As long as they are protected from PvP they don't care what this does to a PvX game.
Could you stop crying already? It is getting really annoying seeing you pop up in every possible place, complaining about a system that isn't even in place yet in a game we havn't even played.
How about we wait for alpha 1 and see what the system actually looks like?
@Gothix Everyday of my life I sigh in despair about all the crap I have to put up with because of the (I am hoping) very small percentage of uneducated, inconsiderate, self-absorbed people that I run into in public, especially on the road, and rarely (but surely) at work.
I have not checked out of life, please don't check out of Ashes over it.
Could you stop crying already? It is getting really annoying seeing you pop up in every possible place
Things that annoy you are your own problem mate. You should stop crying about other people posting stuff in this forum. It's getting annoying you know.
People are completely forgetting that this affects normal meaningful PvP game play as well (attacks for resources / defense of your nodes teritory / resources etc).
This is what the guild war system is for.
No one is saying you can't PvP for things, Intrepid are just saying there are systems in place for when and where that PvP should take place.
It is also worth pointing out that this is only a "should". There is nothing phisically stopping you from attacking someone - it is just that there will likely be a penalty to do so. If that person is pissing you off for what ever reason, kill them.
Problem with Intrepids guild war system is that you can't proclaim war on some guild one sided. The other guild has to agree to a war if war will take place.
So if some guild comes to your nodes territory and starts harvesting resources, and you try to attack it, and ask for a war. Why the hell would they accept lol? They will just refuse it and continue harvesting while remaining green.
Now IF Intrepid studios would change the guild war system so that it can be activated without mutual consent of both guilds, that would be another story.
For now guild war (as it is) is useless for anything other than 2 PvE guilds having some objective based fun when they both want to.
PvP guilds will run around purple anyway, so they do not need guild war system to PvP amongst each other.
Many people might not see this, but AoC is very much tailored towards a PvE player, that occasionally wants to have mutually consensual PvP when he gets bored of grinding.
I thought you could declare rival guilds. Also, I thought Castle oriented nodes were considered battleground areas where peeps were flagged purple. Maybe not, sorry if this isn't the case.
Problem with Intrepids guild war system is that you can't proclaim war on some guild one sided. The other guild has to agree to a war if war will take place.
So if some guild comes to your nodes territory and starts harvesting resources, and you try to attack it, and ask for a war. Why the hell would they accept lol? They will just refuse it and continue harvesting while remaining green.
Now IF Intrepid studios would change the guild war system so that it can be activated without mutual consent of both guilds, that would be another story.
For now guild war (as it is) is useless for anything other than 2 PvE guilds having some objective based fun when they both want to.
I personally agree that there should be no need for consent from the second guild in regards to a guild war, though there need to be consequences for the guild declaring war if all they do is attack a few players and then go on about other business.
I wouldn't look too much in to what we know about the system now, and consider more what the intention with it seems to be - as eventually the functionality of the system will match the intention.
PvP guilds will run around purple anyway, so they do not need guild war system to PvP amongst each other.
Many people might not see this, but AoC is very much tailored towards a PvE player, that occasionally wants to have mutually consensual PvP when he gets bored of grinding.
AoC is a PvE game mostly, yes. All MMO's are. You can't have a persistent world that is mostly about PvE and have it commercially viable.
Commercially viable games that are all about PvP are all non-persistent - MOBA's, Battle Royale type games, and games like Crowfall, an MMO where the world is non-persistent.
That said, this game will have PvP. This game will have guilds that base themselves on PvP. Thing is, no PvP survives long.
My expreiences of PvP in MMORPG's are all similar. The game starts out with a fairly high amount of PvP, lots of guilds fighting and such. Eventually this all evens out to one or two guilds that everyone merges in to. These guilds fight, one wins and the other leaves (either the server or the game). This leaves the server with one guild that wants PvP, but no one left to PvP them.
This all happens in a time span ranging from 6 - 18 months (the more restriction on PvP in the game, the longer it takes - I would wager a game with no PvP restriction could do this in under 3 months), and ends up in a game with no viable PvP, and only the PvE aspects left to keep the game going.
Why would any developer develop a game based around PvP that is always going to end in one dominant guild with nothing to do? This entire scenario is exactly what Crowfall intends to reproduce every few months or so - people start out on the server, they all fight, one guild becomes dominant - then the world resets and everyone starts again.
There is only room in the market for one such game - I predict it will only last 24 - 30 months at that. Other MMO's need to highlight the PvE aspects of the game, as they are the aspects of the game that will actually carry it. PvP is there - it is there both for the players that like it to enjoy, and for the players that don't like it to have a sense of danger. it is not, however, the primary aspect of this game.
AoC is a PvE game mostly, yes. All MMO's are. You can't have a persistent world that is mostly about PvE and have it commercially viable.
Commercially viable games that are all about PvP are all non-persistent - MOBA's, Battle Royale type games, and games like Crowfall, an MMO where the world is non-persistent.
That said, this game will have PvP. This game will have guilds that base themselves on PvP. Thing is, no PvP survives long.
If i'm not mistaken, you claim your evidence for this is that one doesn't exist therefore it's impossible to make one? I'm pretty sure you would be saying Battle Royale style games were not viable a year ago before we got pubg and fortnite.
@Azathoth I've read somewhere around here that guild war system is a objective based system, and both guilds must agree for it to be activated. I can't find the source now.
Also to people claiming they see more PvE players in MMOs they play.
Yeah, it's closed magic circle: Game get tailored more towards PvE, you chose it because of that and go play it, other PvE players chose it for the same reason, PvP players avoid it for the same reason, as result more PvE players end up around you.
The way the game is designed will dictate what type of players the game will attract more.
But to claim that is more PvE players in gaming world then PvP players is complete nonsense.
I know there will be an objective based war system, where once objectives are achieved or time expires the war ends. They claim they don't want there to be endless guild wars, in that two guilds can declare war and go back and forth forever.
I assumed both guilds would have to choose objectives, but I never gave any thought to (or heard that) guilds would have the option of not accepting. A small consolation for you might be that guilds w/ castles will not be able to say "...no, we don't want you to siege our castle."
I didn't know if they released guild specs and I missed them.
At this point no one can say how harsh/balanced/broken it will turn out or did you see some numbers no one else has? We only have indications at best, leveling supposedly being slower paced and such so even a "small" penalty might be a bit of a dent after all, but well it's barely an indication at all. One thing is for sure tho, being max level won't stop the penalty. There are to many other options that could be targeted. Skills still have a horizontal progress that can just as well be the target of a penalty. What about your armor? Staying green may just as well put a higher durability penalty on you which will cost you more to repair. Maybe a mix of all of them? Maybe there are other things still out there that haven't been presented to us yet. Who knows? One thing we know for sure, there are things we don't know, claiming otherwise is just ignorant.
I'm pretty sure you would be saying Battle Royale style games were not viable a year ago before we got pubg and fortnite.
Not at all.
Short duration competitive matches make perfect sense in almost any genre.
It is the longer - yet not permanent - ones that don't make sense to me. Think Crowfall.
It's exactly as I have thought (just look at various comments above).
People consider balancing whole corruption around griefers (meaningless continual attacking of same target), while griefers make up maybe 1% of the population. People are completely forgetting that this affects normal meaningful PvP game play as well (attacks for resources / defense of your nodes teritory / resources etc).
This is a problem with this community. The lack of foresight. And more importantly the lack of caring. As long as they are protected from PvP they don't care what this does to a PvX game.
I honestly don't see this being an issue in meaningful PvP, as Intrepid have already stated that you will not gain corruption if the other party attacks you as well, or if you are in a PvP zone. The system is only in place to combat douchebags who are trying to ruin the fun for others.
In terms of the idea of corruption affecting all characters on your account, I'm somewhat on the fence about it. I don't think griefing and you being a douche should just go away simply because of you changing to an alt character, but..
@BraneGames @Gothix is a firm believer that killing someone in their node, stealing their resources, and taking them back to your node is a meaningful PvP (even if it would be red vs. green). Like how Vikings expanded their coffers and funded more Viking activity. In this case it would be meaningful PvP that unjustly punished PvP while protecting PvE.
Having an entire node use that philosophy, imo, would be detrimental though. I believe it would lead to all PvP players being encouraged to kill greens in other nodes because they would be worth more resources and not fight back. So I am still on board with the corruption mechanic.
I like to think that some players can make douche-bag alts (or a main) but then also make super friendly and carefree characters. Their corrupted avatars will be hunted and suffer (imo, as they should) but their helpful friendly characters should not. The problem with having an alt designed to drop corruption by just dying, as has been mentioned, would be a big concern of mine.
@Gothix is a firm believer that killing someone in their node, stealing their resources, and taking them back to your node is a meaningful PvP (even if it would be red vs. green). Like how Vikings expanded their coffers and funded more Viking activity. In this case it would be meaningful PvP that unjustly punished PvP while protecting PvE.
Basically this, yes.
Although if someone left to other node, followed same green player around over prolonged period of time and killing him repeatedly that would still be considered griefing, and apply corruption, so griefing would still be detered by corruption system.
However, meaningful conflict (even if vs. green) that does not turn to griefing would not apply corruption.
@Gothix is a firm believer that killing someone in their node, stealing their resources, and taking them back to your node is a meaningful PvP (even if it would be red vs. green). Like how Vikings expanded their coffers and funded more Viking activity. In this case it would be meaningful PvP that unjustly punished PvP while protecting PvE.
Basically this, yes.
Although if someone left to other node, followed same green player around over prolonged period of time and killing him repeatedly that would still be considered griefing, and apply corruption, so griefing would still be detered by corruption system.
However, meaningful conflict (even if vs. green) that does not turn to griefing would not apply corruption.
I think you and I have fundamentally different ideas about the purpose of nodes in this game.
The following is what my assumptions about PvP in the open world in relation to nodes in this game are based on.
Nodes and the area around them are not intended to be exclusively for the members of one guild - nor even exclusively for the use of the citizens of that node.
The player in charge of a node (as far as we know) has no say in who can and can not be a citizen of their node, that is up to individual players.
The resources present in a node are not completely based on what citizens of that node do, they are equally dependent (potentially even MORE dependent) on what non - citizens bring to that node via caravans.
Nodes do not contain all resources in the game, and the resources present fluctuate considerably. This means it is even more essential to keep caravans coming in to the node to provide resources that are not present at any given time.
It is entirely possible that if you see a solo player with a caravan of goods your node is lacking, and they are heading TO your node, the best thing you could do for your node is to escort them, rather than attack them.
The node system in this game is not a simple case of "GET OFF MY LAWN!". The system, along with who and when you should attack is far more complex than that.
If a node does gain a server-wide reputation as the typical "get off my lawn" type node, other players will simply cease trying to take caravans there, constricting that nodes growth and leaving it to wither into nothingness.
The corruption system has two main functions, the first is to stop you attacking players without reason. Someone harvesting resources in "your" node is not a reason to attack them. Someone taking a caravan to "your" node is not a reason to attack them - it is a reason to thank them.
That said, going out and hunting caravans that are not originating from or heading to "your" node, attacking them and taking their contents back IS valid PvP. This is where the second functoin of the corruption system comes in - to provide a cost to balance against the attack. If there was no cost to the attack, initiating the attack is essentially free. If there is a chance of you failing in the attack but still earning corruption, it lends some weight to the decision to attack rather than simply being a case of no reason to not attack.
The corruption system has two main functions, the first is to stop you attacking players without reason. Someone harvesting resources in "your" node is not a reason to attack them. Someone taking a caravan to "your" node is not a reason to attack them - it is a reason to thank them.
This is game based on conflict. So yes it's a reason. You personally and your node grow stronger. Rest become weaker.
I take your resources, I get monetary reward, you lose it. Pretty tangible reason to attack I'd say.
If you want to hold hands with others and sing kumba yah, this might not be a game for you.
There is no reason for you to assume this is the case, the developers have never once said the game is based on conflict.
We are both making some assumptions about the game - some of which will no doubt be right, some of which will no doubt be wrong. However, an assumption that is absolutely wrong is the assumption that the game is based on conflict. The game has conflict, but it is not at all based on it. The developers have said no such thing, nor have they hinted that the game will be based around conflict. You may play the game based on conflict with others, and that's fine - as long as you take the mechanics as they are.
I take your resources, I get monetary reward, you lose it. Pretty tangible reason to attack I'd say.
Other games with mechanics based on taking resources from one area to another for profit, with mechanics in place for players to take those resources for themselves (Archeage trade pack are what comes to mind) have systems in place where you do not get the full amount of resources if you take from another player. While we do not know if that is the case here, it can not be dismissed as a possibility (especially considering how much of an influence Archeage has on this game). This is a necessary mechanic to put in place, otherwise stealing resources would be more viable than generating them, meaning no one would bother generating them in the first place (and again, this is an issue Archeage faced and no doubt Intrepid explored and learned from).
If this is the case, you take my caravan and turn it in, you and your node get less than you would have in terms of resources than you would have if I had have completed the route myself. Remember, caravans are not about taking resources from one area to another, getting gold and then those resources disappearing - they are about taking resources from one area in the game to another so that the other area now has those resources to use.
And as to your closing sentiments about this game maybe not being for me - I'm not against PvP at all. In fact, I was a pirate in Archeage on one of the heaviest populated servers in the first 2 years of the game - at times I was the ONLY pirate on the server (aka, I was red to literally ever other player by choice).
I am trying hard to not cloud what I see this game being with what I want this game to be. They are different things. When I post about my assumptions on this game they are based on what developers have said directly about features, and generally about the tone of the game.
Killing a green citizen of (or in) another node might be advantageous to that node. Some resources are lost sure, but who knows where that player was going to take them and that player is going to work (likely in that node) to recover xp dept and finish mining that node. Increasing the original amount of xp that node was going to collect from that green player some (likely not a lot, but over time...).
We likely won't have floating text that tells players what node we belong to, except for maybe a flag mechanic during a siege.
So this could be even more detrimental to the goal of the PvP player that risked corruption. Now the goal might have to be to only kill greens in your node and prevent them from leaving... but we have come off topic a bit.
I voted for other because if its not per character, at most it maybe should be server wide but never account wide. I think account wide is too far reaching but server wide might be doable if not then keep it per character. We will have to wait to see how the system plays in an actual gameplay environment though before I can give any real opinion on it though.
@Azathoth You are forgetting that many players will primarily be thinking about themselves and their own reward, and progress, and only after that think of their node. Or they will think of both in same time.
My point, don't forget it's not all about progressing a node, but about progressing your self as well. So stealing resources from other person, regardless of which node he belongs to is still beneficial to the players progress, and thus meaningful to that player. It's a theft with a real reason. Reason to get richer.
And as long as it's not repeated killing of same target who might not even have resources on him, it's not griefing. It's meaningful attack. Regardless of node affiliation.
Comments
People consider balancing whole corruption around griefers (meaningless continual attacking of same target), while griefers make up maybe 1% of the population. People are completely forgetting that this affects normal meaningful PvP game play as well (attacks for resources / defense of your nodes teritory / resources etc).
This is a problem with this community. The lack of foresight. And more importantly the lack of caring. As long as they are protected from PvP they don't care what this does to a PvX game.
Could you stop crying already? It is getting really annoying seeing you pop up in every possible place, complaining about a system that isn't even in place yet in a game we havn't even played.
How about we wait for alpha 1 and see what the system actually looks like?
Everyday of my life I sigh in despair about all the crap I have to put up with because of the (I am hoping) very small percentage of uneducated, inconsiderate, self-absorbed people that I run into in public, especially on the road, and rarely (but surely) at work.
I have not checked out of life, please don't check out of Ashes over it.
Things that annoy you are your own problem mate. You should stop crying about other people posting stuff in this forum. It's getting annoying you know.
If you notice, whitedude is crying cause my posts annoy him, and that's honestly his own problem.
No one is saying you can't PvP for things, Intrepid are just saying there are systems in place for when and where that PvP should take place.
It is also worth pointing out that this is only a "should". There is nothing phisically stopping you from attacking someone - it is just that there will likely be a penalty to do so. If that person is pissing you off for what ever reason, kill them.
Problem with Intrepids guild war system is that you can't proclaim war on some guild one sided. The other guild has to agree to a war if war will take place.
So if some guild comes to your nodes territory and starts harvesting resources, and you try to attack it, and ask for a war. Why the hell would they accept lol? They will just refuse it and continue harvesting while remaining green.
Now IF Intrepid studios would change the guild war system so that it can be activated without mutual consent of both guilds, that would be another story.
For now guild war (as it is) is useless for anything other than 2 PvE guilds having some objective based fun when they both want to.
PvP guilds will run around purple anyway, so they do not need guild war system to PvP amongst each other.
Many people might not see this, but AoC is very much tailored towards a PvE player, that occasionally wants to have mutually consensual PvP when he gets bored of grinding.
How do you know how the guild war system works?
I wouldn't look too much in to what we know about the system now, and consider more what the intention with it seems to be - as eventually the functionality of the system will match the intention.
AoC is a PvE game mostly, yes. All MMO's are. You can't have a persistent world that is mostly about PvE and have it commercially viable.
Commercially viable games that are all about PvP are all non-persistent - MOBA's, Battle Royale type games, and games like Crowfall, an MMO where the world is non-persistent.
That said, this game will have PvP. This game will have guilds that base themselves on PvP. Thing is, no PvP survives long.
My expreiences of PvP in MMORPG's are all similar. The game starts out with a fairly high amount of PvP, lots of guilds fighting and such. Eventually this all evens out to one or two guilds that everyone merges in to. These guilds fight, one wins and the other leaves (either the server or the game). This leaves the server with one guild that wants PvP, but no one left to PvP them.
This all happens in a time span ranging from 6 - 18 months (the more restriction on PvP in the game, the longer it takes - I would wager a game with no PvP restriction could do this in under 3 months), and ends up in a game with no viable PvP, and only the PvE aspects left to keep the game going.
Why would any developer develop a game based around PvP that is always going to end in one dominant guild with nothing to do? This entire scenario is exactly what Crowfall intends to reproduce every few months or so - people start out on the server, they all fight, one guild becomes dominant - then the world resets and everyone starts again.
There is only room in the market for one such game - I predict it will only last 24 - 30 months at that. Other MMO's need to highlight the PvE aspects of the game, as they are the aspects of the game that will actually carry it. PvP is there - it is there both for the players that like it to enjoy, and for the players that don't like it to have a sense of danger. it is not, however, the primary aspect of this game.
ON TOPIC: I'd be fine with it being either way.
Yeah, it's closed magic circle: Game get tailored more towards PvE, you chose it because of that and go play it, other PvE players chose it for the same reason, PvP players avoid it for the same reason, as result more PvE players end up around you.
The way the game is designed will dictate what type of players the game will attract more.
But to claim that is more PvE players in gaming world then PvP players is complete nonsense.
I assumed both guilds would have to choose objectives, but I never gave any thought to (or heard that) guilds would have the option of not accepting. A small consolation for you might be that guilds w/ castles will not be able to say "...no, we don't want you to siege our castle."
I didn't know if they released guild specs and I missed them.
We only have indications at best, leveling supposedly being slower paced and such so even a "small" penalty might be a bit of a dent after all, but well it's barely an indication at all.
One thing is for sure tho, being max level won't stop the penalty. There are to many other options that could be targeted. Skills still have a horizontal progress that can just as well be the target of a penalty. What about your armor? Staying green may just as well put a higher durability penalty on you which will cost you more to repair.
Maybe a mix of all of them?
Maybe there are other things still out there that haven't been presented to us yet. Who knows? One thing we know for sure, there are things we don't know, claiming otherwise is just ignorant.
Not at all. Short duration competitive matches make perfect sense in almost any genre. It is the longer - yet not permanent - ones that don't make sense to me. Think Crowfall.
In terms of the idea of corruption affecting all characters on your account, I'm somewhat on the fence about it. I don't think griefing and you being a douche should just go away simply because of you changing to an alt character, but..
@Gothix is a firm believer that killing someone in their node, stealing their resources, and taking them back to your node is a meaningful PvP (even if it would be red vs. green). Like how Vikings expanded their coffers and funded more Viking activity. In this case it would be meaningful PvP that unjustly punished PvP while protecting PvE.
Having an entire node use that philosophy, imo, would be detrimental though. I believe it would lead to all PvP players being encouraged to kill greens in other nodes because they would be worth more resources and not fight back. So I am still on board with the corruption mechanic.
I like to think that some players can make douche-bag alts (or a main) but then also make super friendly and carefree characters. Their corrupted avatars will be hunted and suffer (imo, as they should) but their helpful friendly characters should not. The problem with having an alt designed to drop corruption by just dying, as has been mentioned, would be a big concern of mine.
Basically this, yes.
Although if someone left to other node, followed same green player around over prolonged period of time and killing him repeatedly that would still be considered griefing, and apply corruption, so griefing would still be detered by corruption system.
However, meaningful conflict (even if vs. green) that does not turn to griefing would not apply corruption.
The following is what my assumptions about PvP in the open world in relation to nodes in this game are based on.
Nodes and the area around them are not intended to be exclusively for the members of one guild - nor even exclusively for the use of the citizens of that node.
The player in charge of a node (as far as we know) has no say in who can and can not be a citizen of their node, that is up to individual players.
The resources present in a node are not completely based on what citizens of that node do, they are equally dependent (potentially even MORE dependent) on what non - citizens bring to that node via caravans.
Nodes do not contain all resources in the game, and the resources present fluctuate considerably. This means it is even more essential to keep caravans coming in to the node to provide resources that are not present at any given time.
It is entirely possible that if you see a solo player with a caravan of goods your node is lacking, and they are heading TO your node, the best thing you could do for your node is to escort them, rather than attack them.
The node system in this game is not a simple case of "GET OFF MY LAWN!". The system, along with who and when you should attack is far more complex than that.
If a node does gain a server-wide reputation as the typical "get off my lawn" type node, other players will simply cease trying to take caravans there, constricting that nodes growth and leaving it to wither into nothingness.
The corruption system has two main functions, the first is to stop you attacking players without reason. Someone harvesting resources in "your" node is not a reason to attack them. Someone taking a caravan to "your" node is not a reason to attack them - it is a reason to thank them.
That said, going out and hunting caravans that are not originating from or heading to "your" node, attacking them and taking their contents back IS valid PvP. This is where the second functoin of the corruption system comes in - to provide a cost to balance against the attack. If there was no cost to the attack, initiating the attack is essentially free. If there is a chance of you failing in the attack but still earning corruption, it lends some weight to the decision to attack rather than simply being a case of no reason to not attack.
This is game based on conflict. So yes it's a reason. You personally and your node grow stronger. Rest become weaker.
I take your resources, I get monetary reward, you lose it. Pretty tangible reason to attack I'd say.
If you want to hold hands with others and sing kumba yah, this might not be a game for you.
No it isn't.
There is no reason for you to assume this is the case, the developers have never once said the game is based on conflict.
We are both making some assumptions about the game - some of which will no doubt be right, some of which will no doubt be wrong. However, an assumption that is absolutely wrong is the assumption that the game is based on conflict. The game has conflict, but it is not at all based on it. The developers have said no such thing, nor have they hinted that the game will be based around conflict. You may play the game based on conflict with others, and that's fine - as long as you take the mechanics as they are.
If this is the case, you take my caravan and turn it in, you and your node get less than you would have in terms of resources than you would have if I had have completed the route myself. Remember, caravans are not about taking resources from one area to another, getting gold and then those resources disappearing - they are about taking resources from one area in the game to another so that the other area now has those resources to use.
And as to your closing sentiments about this game maybe not being for me - I'm not against PvP at all. In fact, I was a pirate in Archeage on one of the heaviest populated servers in the first 2 years of the game - at times I was the ONLY pirate on the server (aka, I was red to literally ever other player by choice).
I am trying hard to not cloud what I see this game being with what I want this game to be. They are different things. When I post about my assumptions on this game they are based on what developers have said directly about features, and generally about the tone of the game.
We likely won't have floating text that tells players what node we belong to, except for maybe a flag mechanic during a siege.
So this could be even more detrimental to the goal of the PvP player that risked corruption. Now the goal might have to be to only kill greens in your node and prevent them from leaving... but we have come off topic a bit.
Does this line of thinking jive with anyone else?
My point, don't forget it's not all about progressing a node, but about progressing your self as well. So stealing resources from other person, regardless of which node he belongs to is still beneficial to the players progress, and thus meaningful to that player. It's a theft with a real reason. Reason to get richer.
And as long as it's not repeated killing of same target who might not even have resources on him, it's not griefing. It's meaningful attack. Regardless of node affiliation.