We now seem to be 'well it's your mistake for not thinking the game might not be for you in the first place, and clearly the goal is to have some free for all areas, you could just not play in those'.
I see the implication here as 'but you should play anyway, it's not a big deal'.
But some PvE players, and at least the PvP players I know personally, have seen this in other games and it usually amounts to just the 'wolf and sheep' thing. Because in the end, some people prefer their danger and challenge to primarily come from PvE content.
And if you say 'the world is supposed to feel dangerous' but then go 'so we have increased the PvP content', those people have no recourse. AI plays fair, people don't, and I'm not talking about power gaps. If an AI starts to do something contrary to 'general reason' that is somehow annoying (not even necessarily effective), a PvE player complains, or flags it as a bug.
If a human starts to do something 'contrary to general reason' that is somehow annoying (again, not necessarily effective), the PvE player can't be sure it will or won't continue. Some people say 'just adapt', but the stronger option is just better because most PvP opponents are not fun.
The stronger option being the one chosen. "Just don't play". That's the core here. If you can't grasp why Dygz doesn't play on servers with autoflag PvP zones, one big potential reason is because games like that get more of a certain annoying type of player in their population.
My fighting game experience applies in this case only because it's the psychology of players that applies, not the mechanics. In those games if I get into a match where my opponent's entire goal is to annoy and negate any option I have, even if I win I lose so I stop fighting. I can 'leave altogether'. Some of those people will invite me back, sometimes I'll go back because I think their intention is 'Ok ok I'll stop'.
8 out of 10 times it isn't. They're so dedicated to just being annoying that they do this anyway.
So from my end, PvP heavy games aren't unappealing because of the threat of people killing me. They're unappealing because people are annoying, often instead of actually fighting. Ashes explicitly has no defenses against people being annoying in their owPvP as it is. To me, this would be a big deal. This may not apply to any of you talking now, but I know you know they exist.
The most appealing thing about a strongly designed PvX game for me was the idea that the 'person who plays just to annoy' would not even want to play. I feel like that's been eroded now, but I'm not sure, so I'll await the 'reassurances'. Corruption wasn't even going to resolve this in 1v1, and if I start fighting and start winning but then keep being pinged or 'harassed' by an opponent who now flees, every time I flag Combatant I have removed any chance they have corruption. I've looked into ArcheAge, and am doing so more and more from this. It's not the same as playing it, but it's certainly not showing up any good points so far.
I'm already thinking about how the 'attacking a ship in coastal waters from Open Sea' and 'moving in and out of open sea or neutral waters quickly' mechanics will work in Ashes (I expect they will be fine, but expectation isn't a strong factor around here at the moment)
tl;dr People suck and this change makes more of the worst people more willing to play this game.
This is entirely an opinion. I have fun trying to outsmart and beat those people
We now seem to be 'well it's your mistake for not thinking the game might not be for you in the first place, and clearly the goal is to have some free for all areas, you could just not play in those'.
I see the implication here as 'but you should play anyway, it's not a big deal'.
But some PvE players, and at least the PvP players I know personally, have seen this in other games and it usually amounts to just the 'wolf and sheep' thing. Because in the end, some people prefer their danger and challenge to primarily come from PvE content.
And if you say 'the world is supposed to feel dangerous' but then go 'so we have increased the PvP content', those people have no recourse. AI plays fair, people don't, and I'm not talking about power gaps. If an AI starts to do something contrary to 'general reason' that is somehow annoying (not even necessarily effective), a PvE player complains, or flags it as a bug.
If a human starts to do something 'contrary to general reason' that is somehow annoying (again, not necessarily effective), the PvE player can't be sure it will or won't continue. Some people say 'just adapt', but the stronger option is just better because most PvP opponents are not fun.
The stronger option being the one chosen. "Just don't play". That's the core here. If you can't grasp why Dygz doesn't play on servers with autoflag PvP zones, one big potential reason is because games like that get more of a certain annoying type of player in their population.
My fighting game experience applies in this case only because it's the psychology of players that applies, not the mechanics. In those games if I get into a match where my opponent's entire goal is to annoy and negate any option I have, even if I win I lose so I stop fighting. I can 'leave altogether'. Some of those people will invite me back, sometimes I'll go back because I think their intention is 'Ok ok I'll stop'.
8 out of 10 times it isn't. They're so dedicated to just being annoying that they do this anyway.
So from my end, PvP heavy games aren't unappealing because of the threat of people killing me. They're unappealing because people are annoying, often instead of actually fighting. Ashes explicitly has no defenses against people being annoying in their owPvP as it is. To me, this would be a big deal. This may not apply to any of you talking now, but I know you know they exist.
The most appealing thing about a strongly designed PvX game for me was the idea that the 'person who plays just to annoy' would not even want to play. I feel like that's been eroded now, but I'm not sure, so I'll await the 'reassurances'. Corruption wasn't even going to resolve this in 1v1, and if I start fighting and start winning but then keep being pinged or 'harassed' by an opponent who now flees, every time I flag Combatant I have removed any chance they have corruption. I've looked into ArcheAge, and am doing so more and more from this. It's not the same as playing it, but it's certainly not showing up any good points so far.
I'm already thinking about how the 'attacking a ship in coastal waters from Open Sea' and 'moving in and out of open sea or neutral waters quickly' mechanics will work in Ashes (I expect they will be fine, but expectation isn't a strong factor around here at the moment)
tl;dr People suck and this change makes more of the worst people more willing to play this game.
This is entirely an opinion. I have fun trying to outsmart and beat those people
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so.
But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing.
Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee!
0
Options
LethalityMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
If the corruption system was working at what it was designed to do, there'd be no reason to remove it.
Further, there's no way to come to this conclusion without actual play tests. To our knowledge, there has not been any. Which means this design --- which has been in place for at least 5 public years -- changed based on recent "thoughts" about it - not data.
So it's not going to be "more PvP". only "more" ganking from players who will no longer be deterred by potential Corruption. In other words, no increased risk for them - only increased rewards. Or worse, NO rewards, just unchecked freedom.
Again, the issue I have is with consistency. I would like to hear from Steven and the dev team, because right now, the pieces just don't add up. There could be a VERY good reason for this, but I need to hear it before I can buy in.
World Class Indoorsman
1
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk.
If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all?
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so.
But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing.
Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
Corruption is not meant to prevent pvp, it is meant to limit it. So it is not broken if you are simply allowing more pvp in a designated area. Node zones are limited and lawful, oceans are lawless.
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk.
If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all?
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
If the corruption system was working at what it was designed to do, there'd be no reason to remove it.
Further, there's no way to come to this conclusion without actual play tests. To our knowledge, there has not been any. Which means this design --- which has been in place for at least 5 public years -- changed based on recent "thoughts" about it - not data.
So it's not going to be "more PvP". only "more" ganking from players who will no longer be deterred by potential Corruption. In other words, no increased risk for them - only increased rewards. Or worse, NO rewards, just unchecked freedom.
Again, the issue I have is with consistency. I would like to hear from Steven and the dev team, because right now, the pieces just don't add up. There could be a VERY good reason for this, but I need to hear it before I can buy in.
Sure but in the meantime, stop acting like the sky is falling. It will be tested, and as far as you know, the corruption system is still implemented on land and working just fine. Telling people it has failed when you don't know is unproductive
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so.
But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing.
Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
Corruption is not meant to prevent pvp, it is meant to limit it. So it is not broken if you are simply allowing more pvp in a designated area. Node zones are limited and lawful, oceans are lawless.
I did not say it has the intent to prevent PvP, I said it may have the effect. Therefore, if one want to increase PvP activity one may come to the conclusion that removing it is doing just that. Otherwise you could just keep it, if it has no affect on PvP activity.
1
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk.
If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all?
Because that isn't PVX
How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp?
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk.
If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all?
Because that isn't PVX
How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp?
Because you are cutting out pvp. FFA pvp still has the pve making it pvx.
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk.
If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all?
Because that isn't PVX
How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp?
No PvP is just PVE.
Autoflagged PVP in a PVE zone with PVE incentives is PVX
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so.
But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing.
Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
Corruption system is broken you are looking at this with bias and you are going to be running in a circle as you are trying to force things to look from a singular perspective.
You need to realize on land and ocean game play loops are going to be different. Yes there will be threats on the ocean but that isn't going to be as well crafted on content on the land. You are simply going to be in a large ocean with a different kind of gameplay loop for that kind of content.
You are making huge assumptions of the corruption system it is very effective for what it does, but it isn't going to prevent war declarations and people able to kill you and camp you. It is only failing if you are having a misunderstanding of the overall gameplay involving PvP and thinking you can simply and only be a pve player.
If you continue to think i am a PvE players you are not, you are a PvX players as that is what AoC is. PvP is part of the game as well as PvE.
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so.
But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing.
Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
Corruption is not meant to prevent pvp, it is meant to limit it. So it is not broken if you are simply allowing more pvp in a designated area. Node zones are limited and lawful, oceans are lawless.
I did not say it has the intent to prevent PvP, I said it may have the effect. Therefore, if one want to increase PvP activity one may come to the conclusion that removing it is doing just that. Otherwise you could just keep it, if it has no affect on PvP activity.
I mean a limit is an affect, and the limit is there for a reason. Just as not having a limit in open ocean has a reason. Order and disorder. Your land zone are where all of the systems are located, so they may require the corruption to function properly. The open ocean doesn't have those systems so it may not require the limiter
I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee!
Except that I am now also considering not playing.
And if enough of 'me' and 'Dygz' don't play, there's no circle anymore.
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
If the corruption system was working at what it was designed to do, there'd be no reason to remove it.
Further, there's no way to come to this conclusion without actual play tests. To our knowledge, there has not been any. Which means this design --- which has been in place for at least 5 public years -- changed based on recent "thoughts" about it - not data.
So it's not going to be "more PvP". only "more" ganking from players who will no longer be deterred by potential Corruption. In other words, no increased risk for them - only increased rewards. Or worse, NO rewards, just unchecked freedom.
Again, the issue I have is with consistency. I would like to hear from Steven and the dev team, because right now, the pieces just don't add up. There could be a VERY good reason for this, but I need to hear it before I can buy in.
If you think there is no risk for a person going out at sea to pvp with other players out there and the loot they will find or take, you are high on copium pve content. PvP is fun and a rush and no matter what situation you are in is a risk for all.
Corruption is a punishment for pking people to reduce and stop pking. The risk is the same without corruption for all players with dying and dropping your materials.
So basically this makes the Oceans "Guild Only". No solo or small group content as your life expectancy is nil due to gankers.
As a balance, not only should Corruption be active, the local coastal nodes should have AI patrol ships (guards) to police the area within 10 km off their shores to give some safety to solo and small group explorers.
I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee!
Except that I am now also considering not playing.
And if enough of 'me' and 'Dygz' don't play, there's no circle anymore.
And while that is regrettable, not all like you will quit. And if it helps any, despite my bloodthirsty outlook for PVP, I would be willing to have yall play and make sure you don't have to deal with as much open pvp as possible. I want you guys to have fun, and by pvping for you guys I think that sounds fun to me as well
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so.
But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing.
Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
Corruption is not meant to prevent pvp, it is meant to limit it. So it is not broken if you are simply allowing more pvp in a designated area. Node zones are limited and lawful, oceans are lawless.
I did not say it has the intent to prevent PvP, I said it may have the effect. Therefore, if one want to increase PvP activity one may come to the conclusion that removing it is doing just that. Otherwise you could just keep it, if it has no affect on PvP activity.
I mean a limit is an affect, and the limit is there for a reason. Just as not having a limit in open ocean has a reason. Order and disorder. Your land zone are where all of the systems are located, so they may require the corruption to function properly. The open ocean doesn't have those systems so it may not require the limiter
For me, the only relevant goal of the corruption system is prevent griefing. That limit is also required on the ocean. At leat that is my view and I am not willing to move on that. If you have way to remove the side effect of limiting PvP activity as a whole, I am all ears. I have no problem with removing that if the rest still works.
I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee!
Except that I am now also considering not playing.
And if enough of 'me' and 'Dygz' don't play, there's no circle anymore.
And while that is regrettable, not all like you will quit. And if it helps any, despite my bloodthirsty outlook for PVP, I would be willing to have yall play and make sure you don't have to deal with as much open pvp as possible. I want you guys to have fun, and by pvping for you guys I think that sounds fun to me as well
I'm not saying that you should stop supporting a change that makes the game better for you. I'm saying that you should consider what level of changes are capable of making the game better for 'no one' by bringing the population of willing players too low for it to sustain itself.
It's not like this never happens. In the precise situation given, we are looking at 'a change that we don't see a reason for which may reduce the population of players to sustain the game'. Even just demographics wise, there are less 'of you' than there are 'of Dygz' and probably less 'of you' than they are 'of me'.
So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?
So basically this makes the Oceans "Guild Only". No solo or small group content as your life expectancy is nil due to gankers.
As a balance, not only should Corruption be active, the local coastal nodes should have AI patrol ships (guards) to police the area within 10 km off their shores to give some safety to solo and small group explorers.
Not necessarily. There will be different types of ships, ikely including small but very fast ships which solo players could use to outrun or outmanuever large guild ships. That being said, you're more likely to get attacked if you look like you have a lot to be taken, so they may even ignore the fast small ships if it doesn't seem profitable
1
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk.
If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all?
Because that isn't PVX
How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp?
No PvP is just PVE.
Autoflagged PVP in a PVE zone with PVE incentives is PVX
I understand that if what I was saying is make an entire server pve. But that's not what I'm asking about. How does having mostly middle ground with corruption with two areas for the opposite poles of ffa pvp and no pvp not still leave Ashes as a whole a pvx game? Why does either side have to have all or nothing? Ashes should be about balance if it is going to succeed in bringing these two very different populations together.
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so.
But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing.
Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
Corruption is not meant to prevent pvp, it is meant to limit it. So it is not broken if you are simply allowing more pvp in a designated area. Node zones are limited and lawful, oceans are lawless.
I did not say it has the intent to prevent PvP, I said it may have the effect. Therefore, if one want to increase PvP activity one may come to the conclusion that removing it is doing just that. Otherwise you could just keep it, if it has no affect on PvP activity.
I mean a limit is an affect, and the limit is there for a reason. Just as not having a limit in open ocean has a reason. Order and disorder. Your land zone are where all of the systems are located, so they may require the corruption to function properly. The open ocean doesn't have those systems so it may not require the limiter
For me, the only relevant goal of the corruption system is prevent griefing. That limit is also required on the ocean. At leat that is my view and I am not willing to move on that. If you have way to remove the side effect of limiting PvP activity as a whole, I am all ears. I have no problem with removing that if the rest still works.
I don't see a reason to not have a limit where it may be needed and I don't see a reason to not make pvp limitless where it can do so effectively. It's OK to have both in designated areas. The entirety of the world doesn't have to be the same
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so.
But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing.
Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
Corruption system is broken you are looking at this with bias and you are going to be running in a circle as you are trying to force things to look from a singular perspective.
You need to realize on land and ocean game play loops are going to be different. Yes there will be threats on the ocean but that isn't going to be as well crafted on content on the land. You are simply going to be in a large ocean with a different kind of gameplay loop for that kind of content.
You are making huge assumptions of the corruption system it is very effective for what it does, but it isn't going to prevent war declarations and people able to kill you and camp you. It is only failing if you are having a misunderstanding of the overall gameplay involving PvP and thinking you can simply and only be a pve player.
If you continue to think i am a PvE players you are not, you are a PvX players as that is what AoC is. PvP is part of the game as well as PvE.
I think you are wrong. This may be a PvX game, but very, very many players will still be to a very high degree PvE or PvP players. Players gravitate to a playstyle. And in my experience those that gravitate to PvP are more likely to also enjoy PvE than players that gravitate to PvE are enjoying PvP gameplay.
I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee!
Except that I am now also considering not playing.
And if enough of 'me' and 'Dygz' don't play, there's no circle anymore.
And there are tons of other people that will playing in your stead. People from my own guild get more interested and love hearing more types of content into the game.
I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee!
Except that I am now also considering not playing.
And if enough of 'me' and 'Dygz' don't play, there's no circle anymore.
And there are tons of other people that will playing in your stead. People from my own guild get more interested and love hearing more types of content into the game.
As you know, I never believe a word you say.
At this point I don't think I even believe you actually have a guild.
I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee!
Except that I am now also considering not playing.
And if enough of 'me' and 'Dygz' don't play, there's no circle anymore.
And while that is regrettable, not all like you will quit. And if it helps any, despite my bloodthirsty outlook for PVP, I would be willing to have yall play and make sure you don't have to deal with as much open pvp as possible. I want you guys to have fun, and by pvping for you guys I think that sounds fun to me as well
I'm not saying that you should stop supporting a change that makes the game better for you. I'm saying that you should consider what level of changes are capable of making the game better for 'no one' by bringing the population of willing players too low for it to sustain itself.
It's not like this never happens. In the precise situation given, we are looking at 'a change that we don't see a reason for which may reduce the population of players to sustain the game'. Even just demographics wise, there are less 'of you' than there are 'of Dygz' and probably less 'of you' than they are 'of me'.
So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?
That depends entirely on the studios goal. If they are trying to maintain a population of millions of players like wow, it's likely not as beneficial. But if they aren't worried with how many play and simply want to make the game they want to play, even if that means having only a couple servers, then the change is completely fine. And honestly, most games that failed in this way did so because they didn't provide ANY safety for PVEers. But at least with this game, you get to be safe where the core systems are utilized and can choose if you want to venture into the zone which you dislike or not.
If there's no reason for the corruption system at sea, there's no reason for the corruption system anywhere. That's what this says. It doesn't accomplish what it was set out to do. Because if it did, it would be the same at sea.
Or it accomplishes it's goal of restricting pvp but on the sea, they want people fighting over stuff so they removed the restrictions.
They *always* wanted that. Even before AoC was born on Kickstarter, Steven had these ideas in his head for a long time!
So why, all of a sudden... what caused it to change?
Because I presume they want people fighting all over the world... risk vs reward everywhere. Not just in certain zones.
Where, all of a sudden, did the corruption system fall apart in delivering that?
Asked another way: what makes you (or Intrepid) think that players who don't want to fight on land are suddenly going to want to fight at sea?
Here you go again with the "THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM HAS FAILED!". It is literally just a different zone with different rules. It still maintains a focus on PVP and PVE. It's just more PVP to add more risk. Nothing about the oceans being auto flagged pvp implies that the corruption system is going to fail on land. How do you even correlate that unless you're just trying to make people panic?
For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so.
But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing.
Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
Corruption system is broken you are looking at this with bias and you are going to be running in a circle as you are trying to force things to look from a singular perspective.
You need to realize on land and ocean game play loops are going to be different. Yes there will be threats on the ocean but that isn't going to be as well crafted on content on the land. You are simply going to be in a large ocean with a different kind of gameplay loop for that kind of content.
You are making huge assumptions of the corruption system it is very effective for what it does, but it isn't going to prevent war declarations and people able to kill you and camp you. It is only failing if you are having a misunderstanding of the overall gameplay involving PvP and thinking you can simply and only be a pve player.
If you continue to think i am a PvE players you are not, you are a PvX players as that is what AoC is. PvP is part of the game as well as PvE.
I think you are wrong. This may be a PvX game, but very, very many players will still be to a very high degree PvE or PvP players. Players gravitate to a playstyle. And in my experience those that gravitate to PvP are more likely to also enjoy PvE than players that gravitate to PvE are enjoying PvP gameplay.
This is a PvX game you can have your playstyle, but you are still a PvX player.
This complaining is akin to a mmorpg adding a mode to their game and players complain because there is PvP in that mode / content.
Ie* They added battle grounds so now I'm leaving this is too much pvp content I quit, ill stop doing all the other content in the game I was having fun with because of small amount of content they added.
I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee!
Except that I am now also considering not playing.
And if enough of 'me' and 'Dygz' don't play, there's no circle anymore.
And there are tons of other people that will playing in your stead. People from my own guild get more interested and love hearing more types of content into the game.
As you know, I never believe a word you say.
At this point I don't think I even believe you actually have a guild.
Don't worry i don't believe a word either your are chaotic and prone to lying and trying to manipulate people on the forums. Just making a fact you loss is not a big one you are just one of many people.
Comments
This is entirely an opinion. I have fun trying to outsmart and beat those people
Oh yes, I am sure you do.
For me there are two things the corruption system does. It prevents killing people that do not want to fight. The more you kill and the greater the level disparity the faster you will be unable to do so.
But as a consequence it also prevent Pvp to a certain extend, because Pvp players may become bored with all the people not fighting back and they may stop and dont bother anymore. To what extend the latter happens is a matter of testing.
Removing corruption has two potential affectes as well, allowing the killing of people that do not want to fight without consequence and increase the likelyhood of PvP. I do not see any other affects of corruption. So if you remove it, and if you have really analyzed this, there are two reasons for that: you want to allow griefing (i hope that was not the intention) or you want to increase PvP because it is not likely enough. If the latter is the case than corruption is 'broken' in some sense. Of course, they could just have simply not really thought about the implications and just did it (I hope not).
I do indeed. And that's my playstyle. Your playstyle you'd much rather not deal with the problem players. I make it a mission to beat them. Nothing wrong with either of us. In a way it creates a game ecosystem. They go after you, I go after them. It's the circleeeee of lifeeeeee!
If the corruption system was working at what it was designed to do, there'd be no reason to remove it.
Further, there's no way to come to this conclusion without actual play tests. To our knowledge, there has not been any. Which means this design --- which has been in place for at least 5 public years -- changed based on recent "thoughts" about it - not data.
So it's not going to be "more PvP". only "more" ganking from players who will no longer be deterred by potential Corruption. In other words, no increased risk for them - only increased rewards. Or worse, NO rewards, just unchecked freedom.
Again, the issue I have is with consistency. I would like to hear from Steven and the dev team, because right now, the pieces just don't add up. There could be a VERY good reason for this, but I need to hear it before I can buy in.
If we can have zones with different rules for free for all pvp, why can't we have zones with different rules for no pvp at all?
Corruption is not meant to prevent pvp, it is meant to limit it. So it is not broken if you are simply allowing more pvp in a designated area. Node zones are limited and lawful, oceans are lawless.
Because that isn't PVX
Sure but in the meantime, stop acting like the sky is falling. It will be tested, and as far as you know, the corruption system is still implemented on land and working just fine. Telling people it has failed when you don't know is unproductive
I did not say it has the intent to prevent PvP, I said it may have the effect. Therefore, if one want to increase PvP activity one may come to the conclusion that removing it is doing just that. Otherwise you could just keep it, if it has no affect on PvP activity.
How so? How is it not as much a part of pvx as ffa pvp?
Because you are cutting out pvp. FFA pvp still has the pve making it pvx.
No PvP is just PVE.
Autoflagged PVP in a PVE zone with PVE incentives is PVX
Corruption system is broken you are looking at this with bias and you are going to be running in a circle as you are trying to force things to look from a singular perspective.
You need to realize on land and ocean game play loops are going to be different. Yes there will be threats on the ocean but that isn't going to be as well crafted on content on the land. You are simply going to be in a large ocean with a different kind of gameplay loop for that kind of content.
You are making huge assumptions of the corruption system it is very effective for what it does, but it isn't going to prevent war declarations and people able to kill you and camp you. It is only failing if you are having a misunderstanding of the overall gameplay involving PvP and thinking you can simply and only be a pve player.
If you continue to think i am a PvE players you are not, you are a PvX players as that is what AoC is. PvP is part of the game as well as PvE.
I mean a limit is an affect, and the limit is there for a reason. Just as not having a limit in open ocean has a reason. Order and disorder. Your land zone are where all of the systems are located, so they may require the corruption to function properly. The open ocean doesn't have those systems so it may not require the limiter
Except that I am now also considering not playing.
And if enough of 'me' and 'Dygz' don't play, there's no circle anymore.
If you think there is no risk for a person going out at sea to pvp with other players out there and the loot they will find or take, you are high on copium pve content. PvP is fun and a rush and no matter what situation you are in is a risk for all.
Corruption is a punishment for pking people to reduce and stop pking. The risk is the same without corruption for all players with dying and dropping your materials.
As a balance, not only should Corruption be active, the local coastal nodes should have AI patrol ships (guards) to police the area within 10 km off their shores to give some safety to solo and small group explorers.
And while that is regrettable, not all like you will quit. And if it helps any, despite my bloodthirsty outlook for PVP, I would be willing to have yall play and make sure you don't have to deal with as much open pvp as possible. I want you guys to have fun, and by pvping for you guys I think that sounds fun to me as well
For me, the only relevant goal of the corruption system is prevent griefing. That limit is also required on the ocean. At leat that is my view and I am not willing to move on that. If you have way to remove the side effect of limiting PvP activity as a whole, I am all ears. I have no problem with removing that if the rest still works.
I'm not saying that you should stop supporting a change that makes the game better for you. I'm saying that you should consider what level of changes are capable of making the game better for 'no one' by bringing the population of willing players too low for it to sustain itself.
It's not like this never happens. In the precise situation given, we are looking at 'a change that we don't see a reason for which may reduce the population of players to sustain the game'. Even just demographics wise, there are less 'of you' than there are 'of Dygz' and probably less 'of you' than they are 'of me'.
So I ask you, if you assume that this will cause a loss of interest in some part of the population and that number will not be 'regained' by pulling in more than it loses, is it still worth it?
Not necessarily. There will be different types of ships, ikely including small but very fast ships which solo players could use to outrun or outmanuever large guild ships. That being said, you're more likely to get attacked if you look like you have a lot to be taken, so they may even ignore the fast small ships if it doesn't seem profitable
I understand that if what I was saying is make an entire server pve. But that's not what I'm asking about. How does having mostly middle ground with corruption with two areas for the opposite poles of ffa pvp and no pvp not still leave Ashes as a whole a pvx game? Why does either side have to have all or nothing? Ashes should be about balance if it is going to succeed in bringing these two very different populations together.
I'm still playing either way.
I don't see a reason to not have a limit where it may be needed and I don't see a reason to not make pvp limitless where it can do so effectively. It's OK to have both in designated areas. The entirety of the world doesn't have to be the same
I think you are wrong. This may be a PvX game, but very, very many players will still be to a very high degree PvE or PvP players. Players gravitate to a playstyle. And in my experience those that gravitate to PvP are more likely to also enjoy PvE than players that gravitate to PvE are enjoying PvP gameplay.
And there are tons of other people that will playing in your stead. People from my own guild get more interested and love hearing more types of content into the game.
As you know, I never believe a word you say.
At this point I don't think I even believe you actually have a guild.
That depends entirely on the studios goal. If they are trying to maintain a population of millions of players like wow, it's likely not as beneficial. But if they aren't worried with how many play and simply want to make the game they want to play, even if that means having only a couple servers, then the change is completely fine. And honestly, most games that failed in this way did so because they didn't provide ANY safety for PVEers. But at least with this game, you get to be safe where the core systems are utilized and can choose if you want to venture into the zone which you dislike or not.
This is a PvX game you can have your playstyle, but you are still a PvX player.
This complaining is akin to a mmorpg adding a mode to their game and players complain because there is PvP in that mode / content.
Ie* They added battle grounds so now I'm leaving this is too much pvp content I quit, ill stop doing all the other content in the game I was having fun with because of small amount of content they added.
Don't worry i don't believe a word either your are chaotic and prone to lying and trying to manipulate people on the forums. Just making a fact you loss is not a big one you are just one of many people.