Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim.
And it's up to the person making the positive claim to provide sufficient evidence to convince the non-believer.
It's not possible to provide sufficient evidence in the situation because we have no access to the data that could support the assertion. That is fact.
Being sure that Lateana and the rest of the PvE crowd will be perfectly happy is an irrational conclusion. Especially since Lateana continues to express her concerns about PvP combat in Ashes.
My understanding of Lateana's perspective is that she would prefer a game that has PvP combat either regulated to instances, a separate server or PvP immunity flags. It may very well be that Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent preventing other players from attacking her while she is minding her own business - we won't know until we play the game and see how people actually respond to the Corruption mechanic.
You could be sure that the Earth is not round and that people did not travel to the Moon. But, that would not mean your surety comports with reality.
Hmmmn. For me, it's really semantics.
I would say what Davlos described was pretty weak, lame and thoughtless - one step below mindless in my personal hierarchy.
It's akin to people who are all, "Elves killed my parents so all Elves are KOS to me (see, I'm roleplaying. RAWR!)"
Davlos' scenario: It can be in my interest to reduce the earning potential of a neighboring node, and I can send in two dozen PVPers with decent (and not their top-tier) gear. They can then rampage and burn their way through the node while racking up corruption until they eventually die and drop the expendable gear, and it's still not griefing because it satisfies a legitimate political goal - is griefing.
If it weren't griefing, there would be no penalty for the behavior. But, there will be a penalty for that behavior (Corruption), as an attempt to minimize griefing.
You're refusing to acknowledge my points and are falling back to the "it's all hypothetical" argument that I mentioned in the passage. The conclusion that she will be happy is entirely rational given my arguments, which again, you failed to acknowledge or refute. You have yet to refute a single point of mine and insist on arguing instead of discussing and addressing the various points I have made, a courtesy I have afforded you time and again.
Honestly, with that quantity of comments behind you, I was expecting to have higher-quality discussion with you, but it's like you don't even read what I post before you type.
There's no substance to your response:
Here is the first example of an abstract, unsubstantiated claim - that I was speaking of things I didn't know about. Better yet, the following sentence is completely unrelated to what I wrote, and contradicts your points more than it does mine. I was not talking about how often Green players will be attacked - it was you who stated your concern about PvEers being attacked or harassed to begin with. I gave a very detailed response of Incentives and Deterrents (risk vs. reward), which you chose to ignore instead of addressing, much less refuting.
I made my proof through many arguments, all of which you chose to ignore. If you could counter my arguments instead of making broad claims that basically just say "You're wrong because it isn't out yet and you can't know for sure". Nothing on this thread deals with absolutes. We are discussing theoretical systems that could change on a whim. You expect the impossible when looking at the opinion of others, yet have the gall to assert your own claims as correct and undebateable. Your understanding of Burden of proof is extremely flawed. I would suggest doing some research before making such an assertion. Burden of proof applies to both positive and negative claims - skepticism does not warrant entitlement. You need to back up your assertion just as much as I do mine, which you haven't in the slightest. You also still need to be able to refute the claims I make in order to rationally hold the opposing opinion. Otherwise there is no discussion, as is clearly the case here.
The icing on the cake is when you cut out the first line of my paragraph, as well as the conclusion, and completely ignore the points I made within the paragraph. You take the claim and conclusion and cut out my proof as though I did nothing to connect the two. Honestly, you have some nerve. I spend time and energy on each of my arguments, only for them to be ignored half the time on a regular basis. But with you, I have made multiple comments, all of which you have failed to appropriately address. That right there is a broad claim. All. But I am absolutely confident in that assertion. I sincerely hope that the rest of your posts on this forum contain a higher level of discourse
Now I want you to actually try to refute the points I made above in a valid manner that shows a greater capacity for discourse than you have heretofore exhibited. More than just "because we don't have enough information", or "because you're wrong". If you fail to do so adequately, I will consider further discussion pointless.
No one knows how a discussion works anymore. We can probably thank the internet for that - far too many people think that they're entitled to an opinion without having to offer any evidence or reason, or refute that of others. So give me some valid points. Or if you disagree that lacking information is invalid, refute my reasoning behind that. Do something besides repeat yourself. Please.
Sikuba
You don't have to convince me.
You have to convince Lateana and the rest of the PvE crowd.
And, I'm done with this derail.
Do that, and 50% of the chaff around here is already filtered out.
Oof, repping Imperium - that's intense. Checked out your guild's website a while back and you all look super legit. Glad to see you guys are also present in and around the forums, despite having such a presence in so many games.
On a side note I may post a lot on the forums but I'm not sure what that has to do with my ability to understand what the devs plan is?
However I standby and will always standby the fact that regardless of whether I gain something, repeatedly killing someone who does not want to fight is griefing (whether unintentional or not).
They're paying to play the game just like me and I am potentially ruining their experience and time. If this happens to them regularly, they might quit the game.
(this happens a lot more than you might think.)
Which is a detriment to the game I wish to survive.
My line is drawn at DDOSing a rival guild's Mumble/TS server or exposing the RL identities of other people, but I don't care about your feelings on what you feel constitutes "griefing".
It isn't a sensitivity thing, it's a business thing.
There is nothing good you could do on the internet with your attitude, and any community you become a part of, you will have a hand in destroying.
Based on that, you are a financial liability.
Moving past morality, perhaps I am incorrect, but from what I understood from having read a bit into the node system, the only nodes that are locked in level are those beneath a Parent node, and Metropolis nodes. Neighboring nodes can be equal levels, so long as one of them is not the Parent of the other. The conflict arises when you try to turn a City into a Metropolis, as there can only be 5* Metropolises per server.
I could very well be incorrect, but that has been my understanding of it.
Edit: Question related to: "If Node A levels up to 4, neighboring Node B will only get to stay locked at 3 and can't go any farther until Node A is knocked down to 3. Even if Node A gets knocked down to 3, who knows if another neighboring Node C, also at level 3, will quickly work its way to 4? Staying still in node progression means even PVE progression will come to a halt. There's nothing else even for PVE players to do if the node level is locked at 3, and hungry for content, they will leave to the level 4 node."
1: Each server can have a max of 5 Metropolises.
2: The nodes within the ZOI of the Parent node are all part of the hierarchy of the ZOI. So, there will be a limit on how many Stage 4 nodes are possible and how many Stage 3 nodes are possible in a ZOI based on the current Stage of the Parent node.
3: Nodes in neighboring ZOIs could have a range of levels based on what is happening elsewhere on the server.
4: Part of the PvP conflict arises from which racial themes the players wish to have reflected in the local nodes. And which node type(s) the players wish to have greatest prominence locally. In addition, to the types of buildings and services people in the community wish to be implemented in the village, city, etc.
It was based on the comment Dalos made earlier - I should have quoted it, I'll change that. The 4 for the Metropolises was just a misrememberance on my part. I did some digging through the archives and found the post by Lexmax that says "After every advancement, an increasing ring of neighboring nodes are locked out from progressing to the next stage. The advancement of a node unlocks its unique content, which comes at the cost of locking out unique content available in neighboring nodes."
That's what I had been wondering about. I had either missed or forgotten that part.
But it's still interesting to talk and think about the plans that have been made and try to anticipate potential issues - it's what the devs have to do. Any discussion we make towards that end can only make it easier for them to find and work around potential issues
Playing against other players offers a more real setting. I have always stated that the role of society is to foster peace among it's inhabitants.
If you are in relatively civilized area you should be able to be assaulted; BUT the penalty should be neighboring guards/civilians leaping to the rescue. The further you get from society the response should be delayed but those guilty of criminal act should gain a reputation which starts locally, expands regionally until hitting a point of infamy.
Infamy should cause you to lose access at the applicable local, regional, national level to merchants, markets, services and offer bounties to others who desire to "enforce the laws of civilized society" Resetting the infamy of the guilty upon meting out punishment.
For there to be wolves there must be sheep; but lets create a system that rewards being a sheep dog.
I do not like who hit whom first systems... I can create a level one player and run into anyone's PVE AOE and cause him to be flagged if we do not look carefully look at the mechanics.