Yes, but these people won't be flagged as bounty hunters all the time.
Your assumption about numbers of active hunters at any one time on a given server is just that, an assumption.
Yes it is.
Your assumption that there will be enough active hunters at any one time to police a very easy, very dangerous exploit that you want added to the game is also an assumption.
Being corrupt in Ashes is not supposed to be engaging for the corrupt player. It is supposed to be a punishment.
Your interpretation * of the implications of what he meant.
Im not arguing for corruption to be removed because the reason for it being there is justified.
Im arguing that it could also present a level of immersion in that system by which players of exceptional luck or skill might occasionally find gratification in the risk vs reward equation.
Im arguing that it could also present a level of immersion in that system by which players of exceptional luck or skill find gratification in the risk vs reward equation.
And I am saying that every time Steven has been asked about systems that could potentially add reward or remove punishment from corruption he has said outright no.
I am also saying that if this position changed (positions change, it happens), your suggestion is not robust enough to make the cut, so the very least you should do is come up with an idea that isn't so easily exploitable.
Your lack of willingness to do so suggests that you want a system like this for that exploit.
I am also saying that if this position changed (positions change, it happens), your suggestion is not robust enough to make the cut, so the very least you should do is come up with an idea that isn't so easily exploitable.
Your lack of willingness to do so suggests that you want a system like this for that exploit.
In your opinion* but your opinion is not the one I am concerned with.
So when all is said and done, you have your opinions and assumptions, and I have mine.
\
So when all is said and done, you have your opinions and assumptions, and I have mine.
And is it your opinion that a company putting in $50,000,000+ in to a product would add in a mechanic that is as easily exploited as the one you are talking about?
If that is the kind of opinion you have, it is no wonder you are not concerned with other options.
don't mean shit. They mean even less when you reply to posts in 3 and 4 minutes (respectively) after saying each.
Nothing is more amusing to me than someone saying they are done with a thread as the last line of a post, then replying to the rest of the post with that last line removed, and see how long it takes for them to reply.
You're on doing that twice so far, my real question now is if you will go for a third or not after it has been pointed out to you.
You get the choice, either stop replying, or don't. I don't care either way, I just find it amusing when people say they will stop and then literally sit there refreshing the page to get in their next reply as quickly as possible.
What I do know is, you are still posting, after saying many times you wouldn't.
I'm not sure what kind of person has so little self control that they can only manage to not do a thing they said they wouldn't do for a mere few minutes - but I do know that this is you!
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A: “This person has gained soo much corruption by killing and abusing low levels and people not fighting back”
B: “.... but they’re good a PvP?..”
A: “Oh! Okay then let’s reset their corruption so they can keep griefing!”
Just doesn’t make much sense. Making interesting ways to lower corruption? Sure I can see wanting that but not through something so quick and easy as killing a bounty Hunter.
Not through killing bounty hunters, but avoiding being killed by a bunch of them while requiring a certain amount of combat uptime.
The odds are heavily stacked against the corrupted player, based on the increasing degree of consequences as corruption goes higher.
If say the ability to lower or clear corruption only came once a peak of it had been reached, and it required a significant enough combat uptime with same or higher level players to clear it, so that it would be very difficult to actually survive long enough, then that would be a real feat for anyone who could actually accomplish it.
Anyone actually game enough to be willingly corrupt risks their items being looted, so they wouldnt equip gear they wouldnt be comfortable losing permanently, which would in turn make them weaker against bounty hunters, on top of all the other already compromising consequences to gaining heavy corruption.
Noaani is going to continue to troll you for 5 more pages or until Wandering Mist tells him to move on.
You're just saying that because you are incapable of sticking to an argument, and would rather argue semantics. When you do this, most people just walk away, but I don't and you're not used to that.
Not through killing bounty hunters, but avoiding being killed by a bunch of them.
The odds are heavily stacked against the corrupted player, based on the increasing degree of consequences as corruption goes higher.
If say the ability to lower or clear corruption only came once a peak of it had been reached, and it required a significant enough combat uptime with same or higher level players to clear it, so that it would be very difficult to actually survive long enough, then that would be a real feat for anyone who could actually accomplish it.
Anyone actually game enough to be willingly corrupt risks their items being looted, so they wouldnt equip gear they would be comfortable losing permanently, which would in turn make them weaker against bounty hunters, on top of all the other already compromising consequences to gaining heavy corruption.
This is still a system that players can very easily cheese.
If you want to come up with an idea that could be considered, you don't want to look at increasing the difficulty of clearing corruption as much as you want to increase the difficulty of exploiting the system.
Not through killing bounty hunters, but avoiding being killed by a bunch of them while requiring a certain amount of combat uptime.
The odds are heavily stacked against the corrupted player, based on the increasing degree of consequences as corruption goes higher.
If say the ability to lower or clear corruption only came once a peak of it had been reached, and it required a significant enough combat uptime with same or higher level players to clear it, so that it would be very difficult to actually survive long enough, then that would be a real feat for anyone who could actually accomplish it.
Anyone actually game enough to be willingly corrupt risks their items being looted, so they wouldnt equip gear they would be comfortable losing permanently, which would in turn make them weaker against bounty hunters, on top of all the other already compromising consequences to gaining heavy corruption.
your intent: corrupt player outplays a bunch of greens and purples because of leet skillz and gets corruption cleansed after a time window.
Reality: corrupt player hides inside his goon squad of 10+ purple and green friends until the timer runs out.
your intent: corrupt player outplays a bunch of greens and purples because of leet skillz and gets corruption cleansed after a time window.
Reality: corrupt player hides inside his goon squad of 10+ purple and green friends until the timer runs out.
Wouldnt matter much if heals have almost no effect on him and he can be 1-2 shot.
A single snare might mean certain death.
To my mind in that predicament you would have to rely on consumables and knowing the terrain, outfoxing any lazy bounty hunter (which in my scenario would tend to fuel their efforts to kill during the combat uptime window), and other escapades that could be creatively dreamed up.
Surely you can see there are ways to innovate within this concept to ensure as little easy exploitation as possible.
your intent: corrupt player outplays a bunch of greens and purples because of leet skillz and gets corruption cleansed after a time window.
Reality: corrupt player hides inside his goon squad of 10+ purple and green friends until the timer runs out.
Wouldnt matter much if heals have almost no effect on him and he can be 1-2 shot.
A single snare might mean certain death.
To my mind in that predicament you would have to rely on consumables and knowing the terrain, outfoxing any lazy bounty hunter (which in my scenario would tend to fuel their efforts to kill during the combat uptime window), and other escapades that could be creatively dreamed up.
Surely you can see there are ways to innovate within this concept to ensure as little easy exploitation as possible.
Well it doesn't matter how squishy you are if you have a squad of friends killing anyone that tries to get close to you. Your idea assumes that playing solo will be the norm rather than the exception. It could mayyyybe work if players couldn't help you (this would never happen), but the second you add multiple friendlies to the mix the idea just completely fails to hold up.
Unless you can figure out a better way of explaining this or a new idea entirely, you should not expect such a thing to be considered by other players let alone the devs.
Surely you can see there are ways to innovate within this concept to ensure as little easy exploitation as possible.
If we totally ignore the fact that Intrepid don't want any additional encouragement for players to gain corruption, and we assume that they want another avenue to reduce it (neither of which are true right now), there still isn't any scope for anything where other players can cheese things to remove corruption.
0
Options
Kivek RhuKhanMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Well it doesn't matter how squishy you are if you have a squad of friends killing anyone that tries to get close to you. Your idea assumes that playing solo will be the norm rather than the exception. It could mayyyybe work if players couldn't help you (this would never happen), but the second you add multiple friendlies to the mix the idea just completely fails to hold up.
Unless you can figure out a better way of explaining this or a new idea entirely, you should not expect such a thing to be considered by other players let alone the devs.
So make it that players of a certain level of corruption or higher cant group with other players (ie; dont benefit from buffs or heals).
I dont know if youve played the bg in wow with the orbs for example.. how squishy the orb holding players get so that they die very easily even with protection.
I didnt have expectations going into what I suggested in the first place - its just an idea I floated which makes sense to me.
Also, I dont think you and a handful of people here can speak for 'players in general'.
Everyone likes to think their opinions are so reasonable that theyre common sense to all or most.
As I told the flamer earlier, its not his opinion (or yours) that Im necessarily interested in, but your objections have helped in the sense that a certain amount of elaboration of the concept has emerged.
Thats often how worthwhile concepts get fleshed out over time.
As I told the flamer earlier, its not his opinion (or yours) that Im necessarily interested in, but your objections have helped in the sense that a certain amount of elaboration of the concept has emerged.
Thats often how worthwhile concepts get fleshed out over time.
While you may have only just grasped this, that was the whole point of me saying anything to begin with.
Unfortunately, you seem to have not considered looking at the part of it that causes issues.
Well it doesn't matter how squishy you are if you have a squad of friends killing anyone that tries to get close to you. Your idea assumes that playing solo will be the norm rather than the exception. It could mayyyybe work if players couldn't help you (this would never happen), but the second you add multiple friendlies to the mix the idea just completely fails to hold up.
Unless you can figure out a better way of explaining this or a new idea entirely, you should not expect such a thing to be considered by other players let alone the devs.
So make it that players of a certain level of corruption or higher cant group with other players (ie; dont benefit from buffs or heals).
I dont know if youve played the bg in wow with the orbs for example.. how squishy the orb holding players get so that they die very easily even with protection.
I didnt have expectations going into what I suggested in the first place - its just an idea I floated which makes sense to me.
Also, I dont think you and a handful of people here can speak for 'players in general'.
Everyone likes to think their opinions are so reasonable that theyre common sense to all or most.
As I told the flamer earlier, its not his opinion (or yours) that Im necessarily interested in, but your objections have helped in the sense that a certain amount of elaboration of the concept has emerged.
You do not need to be in a group with other players for them to help you.
Everyone likes to think their opinions are so reasonable that theyre common sense to all or most.
We are just telling you what the devs told us, if you think that is our opinion then you just don't understand how little information is out on this in the first place.
Here, go read it if you have not already. If you have already read it, then there's no talking to you.
You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[36] – Steven Sharif
As I said, I have no issue with the corruption system, or the considered rationale for its implementation.
Its there for a very good reason.
I just think that since there will be instances of "...should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so", there ought to be a way for exceptionally talented and determined players to be redeemed if they can best the test.
Its that simple.
Devs may not agree, then again they might, if not now, then further down the road.
I just think that since there will be instances of "...should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so", there ought to be a way for exceptionally talented and determined players to be redeemed if they can best the test.
I am not personally opposed to this idea, as I have said. The developers may be, but that's fine.
What I am opposed to is your suggestion for how to do it - it is, as I have said several times, too easily exploited.
If you came up with a suggestion that fit the above, and that wasn't so easily exploited, you could perhaps be taken seriously.
Companies like Blizzard don't give a shit about their game, as long as it is making a profit for their shareholders. Exploits and things that can be hidden, or that only piss off a small number of players - they are easier and cheaper to ignore than to fix. This is why exploits in the arena exist in WoW.
That is not the case in Ashes. Intrepid are working to design out as many exploits as they are able to think up - because they care about the game as opposed to their shareholders.
As such, any suggestion needs to be free of blatant obvious exploits to be taken seriously, and your suggestion is not.
Comments
Your assumption about numbers of active hunters at any one time on a given server is just that, an assumption.
We wont know the level of activity in this area of the game until its live.
And for it to be robust and engaging there has to be incentive on both sides.
Your assumption that there will be enough active hunters at any one time to police a very easy, very dangerous exploit that you want added to the game is also an assumption.
Being corrupt in Ashes is not supposed to be engaging for the corrupt player. It is supposed to be a punishment.
A punishment can be ultimately rewarding if you survive the challenge of the world falling down around you.
Thats part of the thrill of open world mmos with a pvp element in them.
Anyways, Im over discussing this with you, since its just a merry go round.
My suggestion stands and hopefully the devs will at least consider implementing something like this in the long run.
Tata.
I guess that makes it my take on it.
Im not arguing for corruption to be removed because the reason for it being there is justified.
Im arguing that it could also present a level of immersion in that system by which players of exceptional luck or skill might occasionally find gratification in the risk vs reward equation.
End of.
I am also saying that if this position changed (positions change, it happens), your suggestion is not robust enough to make the cut, so the very least you should do is come up with an idea that isn't so easily exploitable.
Your lack of willingness to do so suggests that you want a system like this for that exploit.
In your opinion* but your opinion is not the one I am concerned with.
So when all is said and done, you have your opinions and assumptions, and I have mine.
You seem to enjoy making assumptions.
If that is the kind of opinion you have, it is no wonder you are not concerned with other options.
I will let you have the last word then, since you so desperately need it.
or
don't mean shit. They mean even less when you reply to posts in 3 and 4 minutes (respectively) after saying each.
Nothing is more amusing to me than someone saying they are done with a thread as the last line of a post, then replying to the rest of the post with that last line removed, and see how long it takes for them to reply.
You're on doing that twice so far, my real question now is if you will go for a third or not after it has been pointed out to you.
Im trying to do us both a favor, but youre like a dog with a bone.
Down, fido.
You get the choice, either stop replying, or don't. I don't care either way, I just find it amusing when people say they will stop and then literally sit there refreshing the page to get in their next reply as quickly as possible.
Also, two minutes is a new record. Go you!
Perhaps not.
What I do know is, you are still posting, after saying many times you wouldn't.
I'm not sure what kind of person has so little self control that they can only manage to not do a thing they said they wouldn't do for a mere few minutes - but I do know that this is you!
B: “.... but they’re good a PvP?..”
A: “Oh! Okay then let’s reset their corruption so they can keep griefing!”
Just doesn’t make much sense. Making interesting ways to lower corruption? Sure I can see wanting that but not through something so quick and easy as killing a bounty Hunter.
The odds are heavily stacked against the corrupted player, based on the increasing degree of consequences as corruption goes higher.
If say the ability to lower or clear corruption only came once a peak of it had been reached, and it required a significant enough combat uptime with same or higher level players to clear it, so that it would be very difficult to actually survive long enough, then that would be a real feat for anyone who could actually accomplish it.
Anyone actually game enough to be willingly corrupt risks their items being looted, so they wouldnt equip gear they wouldnt be comfortable losing permanently, which would in turn make them weaker against bounty hunters, on top of all the other already compromising consequences to gaining heavy corruption.
You're just saying that because you are incapable of sticking to an argument, and would rather argue semantics. When you do this, most people just walk away, but I don't and you're not used to that.
This is still a system that players can very easily cheese.
If you want to come up with an idea that could be considered, you don't want to look at increasing the difficulty of clearing corruption as much as you want to increase the difficulty of exploiting the system.
your intent: corrupt player outplays a bunch of greens and purples because of leet skillz and gets corruption cleansed after a time window.
Reality: corrupt player hides inside his goon squad of 10+ purple and green friends until the timer runs out.
A single snare might mean certain death.
To my mind in that predicament you would have to rely on consumables and knowing the terrain, outfoxing any lazy bounty hunter (which in my scenario would tend to fuel their efforts to kill during the combat uptime window), and other escapades that could be creatively dreamed up.
Surely you can see there are ways to innovate within this concept to ensure as little easy exploitation as possible.
Well it doesn't matter how squishy you are if you have a squad of friends killing anyone that tries to get close to you. Your idea assumes that playing solo will be the norm rather than the exception. It could mayyyybe work if players couldn't help you (this would never happen), but the second you add multiple friendlies to the mix the idea just completely fails to hold up.
Unless you can figure out a better way of explaining this or a new idea entirely, you should not expect such a thing to be considered by other players let alone the devs.
I dont know if youve played the bg in wow with the orbs for example.. how squishy the orb holding players get so that they die very easily even with protection.
I didnt have expectations going into what I suggested in the first place - its just an idea I floated which makes sense to me.
Also, I dont think you and a handful of people here can speak for 'players in general'.
Everyone likes to think their opinions are so reasonable that theyre common sense to all or most.
As I told the flamer earlier, its not his opinion (or yours) that Im necessarily interested in, but your objections have helped in the sense that a certain amount of elaboration of the concept has emerged.
Thats often how worthwhile concepts get fleshed out over time.
While you may have only just grasped this, that was the whole point of me saying anything to begin with.
Unfortunately, you seem to have not considered looking at the part of it that causes issues.
You do not need to be in a group with other players for them to help you.
We are just telling you what the devs told us, if you think that is our opinion then you just don't understand how little information is out on this in the first place.
Here, go read it if you have not already. If you have already read it, then there's no talking to you.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. It is a comfortable balance between player agency and grief and basically removing player agency for other players.[36] – Steven Sharif
Its there for a very good reason.
I just think that since there will be instances of "...should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so", there ought to be a way for exceptionally talented and determined players to be redeemed if they can best the test.
Its that simple.
Devs may not agree, then again they might, if not now, then further down the road.
Thats all there is to it.
I am not personally opposed to this idea, as I have said. The developers may be, but that's fine.
What I am opposed to is your suggestion for how to do it - it is, as I have said several times, too easily exploited.
If you came up with a suggestion that fit the above, and that wasn't so easily exploited, you could perhaps be taken seriously.
Companies like Blizzard don't give a shit about their game, as long as it is making a profit for their shareholders. Exploits and things that can be hidden, or that only piss off a small number of players - they are easier and cheaper to ignore than to fix. This is why exploits in the arena exist in WoW.
That is not the case in Ashes. Intrepid are working to design out as many exploits as they are able to think up - because they care about the game as opposed to their shareholders.
As such, any suggestion needs to be free of blatant obvious exploits to be taken seriously, and your suggestion is not.