DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Nope.
2 != 1
The argument is whether non-combatants have double the death penalty.
Non-combatants do not have double the death penalty.
Non-combatants have normal death penalty, while combatants have half the death penalty.
Semantics would be whether a glass is half full or half empty.
But, a full glass is not doubly full. It is just full.
Non-combatants get 100% of the death penalty. Like a full glass is 100% full.
Combatants get 50% of the death penalty. Like a half-full glass is 50% full.
Again, a full glass is not doubly full. And non-combatants do not get double the death penalty.
Semantics is the discussion of the meaning of words.
The discussion of whether 1 vs 2 is the same thing as 0.5 vs 1 is *literally* a textbook example of lexical semantics - as in, you would find it in actual text books.
Discussing the meaning of semantics to someone that thinks they understand it but in fact don't is also an example of semantics.
A glass being half full or half empty is a discussion on optimism vs pessimism - potentially a philosophic discussion. The talk of a glass being double full is a discussion of physics pertaining to gravity and fluid dynamics. Either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited October 2019
You keep using the word semantics.
I'm not talking about the meaning of words.
I'm stating that just like a whole chicken is different than half a chicken or two chickens.... normal death penalty is different than half death penalty or double death penalty.
First you state it's semantics.
Then you state it has nothing to do with semantics.
You are the one with no clue about what you're talking about. As usual.
Non-combatants do not receive 200% the death penalty.
Non-combatants receive 100% the death penalty.
Combatants receive 50% the death penalty.
Corrupted could receive 200% the death penalty.
I'm not discussing the words. I'm discussing the concepts.
You keep using the word semantics.
I'm not talking about the meaning of words.
I'm stating that just like a whole chicken is different than half a chicken or two chickens.... normal death penalty is different than half death penalty or double death penalty.
First you state it's semantics.
Then you state it has nothing to do with semantics.
You are the one with no clue about what you're talking about. As usual.
Non-combatants do not receive 200% the death penalty.
Non-combatants receive 100% the death penalty.
Combatants receive 50% the death penalty.
Corrupted could receive 200% the death penalty.
I'm not discussing the words. I'm discussing the concepts.
...You're kind of an idiot if you can unironically say "Non-combatants receive 100% the death penalty.
Combatants receive 50% the death penalty." while claiming someone's being dishonest when they tell you non-combatants get higher death penalties than combatants.
And yes, you're talking about the meaning of words, phrases etc etc, which have the same meaning, and then you're claiming one of them is wrong. Your past comment history doesn't seem to point to being a troll, but in this one you sure are going at it to prove otherwise.
Hardly anyone is even saying its a bad thing non-combatants lose more than a combatant, you're just being contrary for literally no reason.
Guys, let semantics be semantics, you are drifting away from the main topic! XD
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited October 2019
Here is the quote I responded to:
"One of the issues I have with the corruption system is the greater penalty for greens."
It does not state "non-combatants get a greater death penalty than combatants."
I don't recall using the word dishonest.
What I said is that the death penalty is not greater for greens. The death penalty for greens is the same, normal death penalty.
The death penalty is lower for purples. Yes.
The death penalty is greater for reds.
Greens get 1x the death penalty.
Purples get .5x the death penalty.
Reds can get 2x the death penalty.
Non-combatants get the normal death penalty.
Combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty in order to encourage direct PvP combat.
Corrupted are penalized with an increasingly greater than normal death penalty in order to discourage forcing other players into unwanted PvP combat.
Because Ashes is a PvX game.
Here is the quote I responded to:
"One of the issues I have with the corruption system is the greater penalty for greens."
It does not state "non-combatants get a greater death penalty than combatants."
I don't recall using the word dishonest.
What I said is that the death penalty is not greater for greens. The death penalty for greens is the same, normal death penalty.
The death penalty is lower for purples. Yes.
The death penalty is greater for reds.
Greens get 1x the death penalty.
Purples get .5x the death penalty.
Reds can get 2x the death penalty.
Non-combatants get the normal death penalty.
Combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty in order to encourage direct PvP combat.
Corrupted are penalized with an increasingly greater than normal death penalty in order to discourage forcing other players into unwanted PvP combat.
Thank you for confirming you're trolling I guess
2
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Guys, let semantics be semantics, you are drifting away from the main topic! XD
Oh well, quite basic stuff in forums, almost every conversation turns to totally meaningless direction and the main point is lost or forgotten. And yes I am icluding also myself
Now if this argue needs a conclusion, lets go with Wiki:
"A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties"
"A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant"
"A corrupt (red player) suffers penalties at three or four times the rate of a non-combatant, and has a chance to drop any carried/equipped items based on their current corruption score"
So it seams that the starting point is green player with normal penalties and others are compared to that with different variables. Case closest, let's move on.
Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
2
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Guys, let semantics be semantics, you are drifting away from the main topic! XD
Oh well, quite basic stuff in forums, almost every conversation turns to totally meaningless direction and the main point is lost or forgotten. And yes I am icluding also myself
and for once its not my fault
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
What about playing with friends or others PvEers ?
Be the biggest group and make you survive against you aggressor? We don't know if a lvl50 aggressor can solo 3 lvl 20 but he may think twice before killing you once your buddy's come supporting you IS want community be created in the game so let's bound PvE vs PvP !
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Here is the quote I responded to:
"One of the issues I have with the corruption system is the greater penalty for greens."
It does not state "non-combatants get a greater death penalty than combatants."
I don't recall using the word dishonest.
What I said is that the death penalty is not greater for greens. The death penalty for greens is the same, normal death penalty.
The death penalty is lower for purples. Yes.
The death penalty is greater for reds.
Greens get 1x the death penalty.
Purples get .5x the death penalty.
Reds can get 2x the death penalty.
Non-combatants get the normal death penalty.
Combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty in order to encourage direct PvP combat.
Corrupted are penalized with an increasingly greater than normal death penalty in order to discourage forcing other players into unwanted PvP combat.
Thank you for confirming you're trolling I guess
My conclusion was that Dygz was either dim or trolling, either way there was no point in furthering the discussion.
I like to think the best of people and assumed the former.
What about playing with friends or others PvEers ?
Be the biggest group and make you survive against you aggressor? We don't know if a lvl50 aggressor can solo 3 lvl 20 but he may think twice before killing you once your buddy's come supporting you IS want community be created in the game so let's bound PvE vs PvP !
1 skilled pvp player can easily tear through 3 pve players in almost every game I have played that was action combat based. tab-target combat based games are the only games I have seen where it is fairly equal because it is less about skill and more about pressing more buttons than the other guy.
What about playing with friends or others PvEers ?
Be the biggest group and make you survive against you aggressor? We don't know if a lvl50 aggressor can solo 3 lvl 20 but he may think twice before killing you once your buddy's come supporting you IS want community be created in the game so let's bound PvE vs PvP !
Well depends a lot of level power gaps, but usually in that kind of case the lvl 50 guy would easily wipe the lower levels. I do not know, but I hope there will be some rules to protect griefing (in this case higher level player killing lowbies). Maybe it should be totally prevented or at least give a massive amount of corruption. Maybe this all have thought already, but I just do not remember.
Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If you're a Level 20 non-combatant and you're attacked by a Level 50, simply don't fight back and let the aggressor suffer the massive corruption if they kill you. That should be all the deterrent required - if Corruption works as intended.
0
Options
AzryilMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Two corruption threads closed....going for three?
0
Options
AmistMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
While it most definitely is a semantics match, From the perspective of some new person coming in looking from info in the forums, it's much easier to accept the explanation, fighting back and dying gives a 50% reduction to death penalty. Jumping of a cliff and dying will give full penalty. PvE will give full penalty. Only fighting and dying to another player will have a reduction. The corruption system is already confusing enough for new guys for whatever reason, lets not make it any more involved to express how it's being built currently to them.
Its
Green -> 1x Death Penalty
Purple -> 0.5x Death Penalty
Why?
Cause..
Red -> 3 to 4 times Death Penalty
So 2>1 would make Red 6-8 times
Although both are factually correct, that is only in ratio
Official statement says Purple halves Death Penalty compared to Green
And that Red is 3-4 times normal death penalty (which is green)
(Also for the guy who said you wont flag if you attack an attacker back in defence, you are wrong.
If you attack anyone (who is not corrupt), you will flag for combat (purple).
The simplest yet hardest stat to train is Willpower.
0
Options
MeowsedMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm of the opinion that non-combatants get 84/18 of the Normal penalty, and purple has 14/6 of the Normal penalty. And the Normal penalty is 9/42 of the usual penalty for PvE.
Comments
2 != 1
The argument is whether non-combatants have double the death penalty.
Non-combatants do not have double the death penalty.
Non-combatants have normal death penalty, while combatants have half the death penalty.
Semantics would be whether a glass is half full or half empty.
But, a full glass is not doubly full. It is just full.
Non-combatants get 100% of the death penalty. Like a full glass is 100% full.
Combatants get 50% of the death penalty. Like a half-full glass is 50% full.
Again, a full glass is not doubly full. And non-combatants do not get double the death penalty.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
---
Semantics is the discussion of the meaning of words.
The discussion of whether 1 vs 2 is the same thing as 0.5 vs 1 is *literally* a textbook example of lexical semantics - as in, you would find it in actual text books.
Discussing the meaning of semantics to someone that thinks they understand it but in fact don't is also an example of semantics.
A glass being half full or half empty is a discussion on optimism vs pessimism - potentially a philosophic discussion. The talk of a glass being double full is a discussion of physics pertaining to gravity and fluid dynamics. Either way, it has absolutely nothing to do with semantics.
I'm not talking about the meaning of words.
I'm stating that just like a whole chicken is different than half a chicken or two chickens.... normal death penalty is different than half death penalty or double death penalty.
First you state it's semantics.
Then you state it has nothing to do with semantics.
You are the one with no clue about what you're talking about. As usual.
Non-combatants do not receive 200% the death penalty.
Non-combatants receive 100% the death penalty.
Combatants receive 50% the death penalty.
Corrupted could receive 200% the death penalty.
I'm not discussing the words. I'm discussing the concepts.
...You're kind of an idiot if you can unironically say "Non-combatants receive 100% the death penalty.
Combatants receive 50% the death penalty." while claiming someone's being dishonest when they tell you non-combatants get higher death penalties than combatants.
And yes, you're talking about the meaning of words, phrases etc etc, which have the same meaning, and then you're claiming one of them is wrong. Your past comment history doesn't seem to point to being a troll, but in this one you sure are going at it to prove otherwise.
Hardly anyone is even saying its a bad thing non-combatants lose more than a combatant, you're just being contrary for literally no reason.
"One of the issues I have with the corruption system is the greater penalty for greens."
It does not state "non-combatants get a greater death penalty than combatants."
I don't recall using the word dishonest.
What I said is that the death penalty is not greater for greens. The death penalty for greens is the same, normal death penalty.
The death penalty is lower for purples. Yes.
The death penalty is greater for reds.
Greens get 1x the death penalty.
Purples get .5x the death penalty.
Reds can get 2x the death penalty.
Non-combatants get the normal death penalty.
Combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty in order to encourage direct PvP combat.
Corrupted are penalized with an increasingly greater than normal death penalty in order to discourage forcing other players into unwanted PvP combat.
Because Ashes is a PvX game.
Thank you for confirming you're trolling I guess
Oh well, quite basic stuff in forums, almost every conversation turns to totally meaningless direction and the main point is lost or forgotten. And yes I am icluding also myself
"A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties"
"A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant"
"A corrupt (red player) suffers penalties at three or four times the rate of a non-combatant, and has a chance to drop any carried/equipped items based on their current corruption score"
So it seams that the starting point is green player with normal penalties and others are compared to that with different variables. Case closest, let's move on.
and for once its not my fault
Be the biggest group and make you survive against you aggressor? We don't know if a lvl50 aggressor can solo 3 lvl 20 but he may think twice before killing you once your buddy's come supporting you
My conclusion was that Dygz was either dim or trolling, either way there was no point in furthering the discussion.
I like to think the best of people and assumed the former.
1 skilled pvp player can easily tear through 3 pve players in almost every game I have played that was action combat based. tab-target combat based games are the only games I have seen where it is fairly equal because it is less about skill and more about pressing more buttons than the other guy.
Well depends a lot of level power gaps, but usually in that kind of case the lvl 50 guy would easily wipe the lower levels. I do not know, but I hope there will be some rules to protect griefing (in this case higher level player killing lowbies). Maybe it should be totally prevented or at least give a massive amount of corruption. Maybe this all have thought already, but I just do not remember.
What have you done this has been dead for months
Aren't you the poster child of things that just won't die?
I didn't do shit, I responded to the necro.....and he(or a mod) deleted his comment.
--Actually it looks like all of Ikcen's posts got nuked from orbit.
And then all the comments were gone.
Green -> 1x Death Penalty
Purple -> 0.5x Death Penalty
Why?
Cause..
Red -> 3 to 4 times Death Penalty
So 2>1 would make Red 6-8 times
Although both are factually correct, that is only in ratio
Official statement says Purple halves Death Penalty compared to Green
And that Red is 3-4 times normal death penalty (which is green)
(Also for the guy who said you wont flag if you attack an attacker back in defence, you are wrong.
If you attack anyone (who is not corrupt), you will flag for combat (purple).
Whhhhyyyyy.