Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Actual PvE brain your response to his shows there is rick because you know people will attack you. It has nothing to do with risk you want deterrent from people attacking you and are masking it behind "risk". More players willing to PvP = more danger = more risk
Corruption = punishment = reduced PvP
PvP = more danger = risk (corruption causing reduced PvP) = less risk.
All you are yelling about again is you want to punish people attacking you, because you realize the risk that will be out there for you.
So you think the people who don't want to fight now suddenly will want to fight?
Again the only objective fact we have is that this removes risk for players that want to grief.
That's it.
This means LESS PvP.
But, I always forget, you're not actually looking for a fight. You're looking for players to steamroll without consequences, which is what this allows.
If the Corruption system was working as it was intended, there would be no reason to remove it from the oceans because it was designed specifically to allow this kind of play but WITH RISK attached. Now, no risk.
This change will either need to revert, or the Corruption system removed entirely.
You're not getting more PvP with this... actual fact. You'll have no more people that are looking for a fight than you did before. Another fact.
All this does is remove the risk for YOU to attack. That's not even PvP. That's griefing when your only interest is preventing someone from playing.
Again, removing the Corruption system removes the risk for the attacker.
There's no debate to be had around this.
There is no rationale they've given about why this change was made, there was no play testing... and likewise, there's no reason to remove Corruption from "some" of the game... if there is, then there is reason to remove it entirely.
Welcome to more PvP if you are trying to do content on the ocean there is risk from any player. No one is getting griefed everyone is a combatant, and there is enough shoreline to go where every you want to go.
No it means more PvP because you will be fighting back or running knowing the risk of conflict.
If you can't handle the content and are not strong enough don't do it simple as that, welcome to PvP the hardest content in the game. You try to dress the words up with griefing and steamrolling, get gud and work with a group and you won't get streamrolled.
Corruption words as intended limiting the pvp by severely punishing people who kill non flagged players. It allows nodes to progress without it being a free for all in land that is more limited and your main source of content in the game.
Stop trying to compare the added sea areas as being the same as land content when you can't compare the two together for reasons for corruption. You have a giant ass ocean and that isn't mandatory for you to be out there as it isn't going to stop your progress. Nor are you spawning in town and seeing someone you the gate ready to kill you making it so you can't do anything.
At the end of the day you aren't even remotely a pvper clearly if you think anyone that kills you is griefing, this is a PvX game you can't avoid pvp including on land. People can kill you without corruption already. You crying about the "added" sea content is already a red flag, I don't think you relize fully that PvP is a big focus for AoC as well. This is your wake up call.
Corruption exists to prevent senseless attacking of others.
By removing the corruption, you inevitably will get more attacks and hence inevitably increase the risk of being attacked by anyone you may come across.
As you have said yourself, the risk in attacking is lower, which will directly facilitate more people being attacked and hence increase the risk (of being attacked) and reduce the chance of making it out alive with that loot as its more likely that you will die.
Arguing, that this wont be the case in order to voice your support for the corruption mechanic is asinine at best: You argue that the removal of corruption doesnt increase the likelihood of players attacking other players. If that was true (which it is not), then corruption wouldnt serve a purpose in the first place.
Intrepid clearly sees corruption as a tool to discourage mindless attacking of others in the open world.
They do not apply it to caravans, because they dont want potential raiders to be discouraged from attacking a caravan and obtaining the resources.
They do not apply it to the open sea, because they dont want players to be discouraged from attacking other ships and contest the resources present in the open ocean.
With this being said, i disagree with the notion, that we need open pvp zones around world bosses.
Use all the mental gymnastics you want
"Corruption is just another word for risk.[15] – Steven Sharif"
Do you know how many times the word risk is used on the wiki page for corruption?
Nice cherry picking quotes, what about the ones about open sea flagging.
It's not cherry picking. Where did he say otherwise? I didnt see it. I agree with the open sea change.
Really the question is risk for who?
Better? The guy I replied to say everyone agrees it's not risk, but he actually said the opposite. Yes it was a while ago, but if he changed his stance please show me.
Perhaps better phrased as: Reward without the risk of Corruption is meaningless.
You are missing the point, and his stance has not changed. He is having open dialogue and being friendly clearly. You are taking the nuance out of the discussion.
Even going by how you are trying to see it is silly. Your point reeks of crying wanting things to be one way. You are effectively saying i don't care about other risk I only want this kind of risk, I want to make sure that they won't flag on me because of the risk.
Clearly Steven understands different kinds of risk and content, and this is part of the issue with open development since the worse side of it is people thinking they know best and skewing information in a way they want to see things and won't accept anything else. IE you said this risk and this skews towards benefiting me so I don't want to see any other risk in the game and i won't view it as risk and be stubborn on forums.
[5:09 PM]Lykire: No pvp zones = game will be boring
[5:10 PM][Virtue] T Elf: There are PvP zones like caravans and seiges
[5:10 PM]Lykire: a pvp zone is a static pvp area
5:10 PM]𝗚𝗶𝗮𝗻: Pvp zones or "war zones"
[5:10 PM]Lykire: war zones
[5:10 PM]Lykire: im talking about an area like stv in wow a pvp zone
5:10 PM][NX] FusedAtoms: Griefers will have a space in the game. I'm sure of it. Griefers just need to be a bit smarter about who they kill and where they kill.
[5:10 PM][Virtue] T Elf: yes a caravan is mobile and is a PvP zone
[5:11 PM]Lykire: thats not pvp thats pve war zone with npc maybe players sometmes
[5:11 PM]Maevynn: If they hit you back, there are no penalties and you don't go corrupt
[5:12 PM][NX] FusedAtoms: @you perfect example of where griefing is worth it. You'll have to evaluate whether the Corruption Score is worth acquiring a lot more riches.
[5:15 PM]Deleted User: no one will want to fucking pvp tho
[5:15 PM]Deleted User: if u have exp debt
[5:15 PM]Lykire: World pvp with penaltys is kinda of a dumb concept
[5:17 PM]Lykire: I mean world pvp at end game zones is fun and its makes it more excting with the questing and farming you do and make rivals from arenas why do i get penalized for that or have to believe its worth it at max level that guy is farming i want to farm i kill him i farm his stuff
[5:18 PM]you: Right, so if the bad guy is being hunted by bounty hunters, why should they also be systematically punished for being criminals?
5:19 PM]Lykire: Either way the pvp system sounds pretty dumb so far escpially at max level
5:20 PM]Steven 😇: @Lykire just because our flagging system gives corruption to pkers, doesn't mean pvp won't happen. There is plenty of reason for pvp to occur open world. Scarce resources, openworld hunting grounds, caravans, sieges, guild wars
[5:21 PM][NX] FusedAtoms: @Steven 😇 That's what I said, especially the thing about scarce resources.
[5:22 PM]Lykire: @Steven 😇 but you punish your players for something they like to do in open world escpially agianst rival players at max level it sounds carebear which is fine if thats what its going for i miss the old school wow world pvp
[5:22 PM]Steven 😇: @Lykire It's not punishment. It's risk. Reward without risk is meaningless.
[5:23 PM]Steven 😇: Corruption is just another word for risk:)
[5:23 PM]Lykire: @Steven 😇 but the risk can be fixed with said pvp zones why is it in place it a punish i dont want his gear or resources i want some epic battles in said zone or said area and maybe stop them from farming this ore for guild wars so my guild can farm it for later use
[5:24 PM]Steven 😇: @Lykire Sieges, caravans, and guild wars do not use the flagging system.
[5:36 PM][Codex] Izaz: @Steven 😇 are resource nodes gonna be pvp areas?
[5:36 PM]Steven 😇: @[Codex] Izaz The whole world is a pvp area, with the flagging system technically
[5:36 PM][Codex] Izaz: @Steven 😇 I meant like in caravans, but I guess that's a no?
[5:37 PM]Steven 😇: @[Codex] Izaz caravans do not use the flagging system
[5:37 PM]Steven 😇: Caravans are open pvp
Unless you have a quote where Steven says the primary main risk for pvp is solo going to be corruption from a design stand point.
Again the issue with open development and i feel sorry for him having to deal with everyone looking to quote any single word he says when he most likely just wants to talk and have fun and be him. Over people being like you said this, so things have to worry exactly like this now, regardless of other things you have said as well.
The sea simply will be more chaotic and pirate feeling in sense with its own game play loop for people that enjoy that. And the reason why they most likely expanded the sea, meaning it is actually added content, not content being removed.
I reply to this "Wrong, I, many others, and most importantly, the game's director disagree with you, the changes bring More PvP which equals to More risk," showing a quote from the game director saying the exact opposite and you say it isn't good enough lmao. Where is the quote saying what he claimed? He's the one who made the claim so he's the one who needs to prove it. You can't say "well if you don't disprove it then it's true" even though so far I did disprove it.
When he says "the changes" he's not talking about the ocean change, at least i didnt take it that way. You seem to forget that I agree with the ocean change, but the suggested change in the OP I disagree with.
Actually he might have been talking about the ocean change. Oh well. I do remember someone said corruption has nothing to do with risk.. maybe I quoted the wrong thing.
In the Open Seas, risks are reduced.
I am literarily talking about the open sea pvp.
The risk is that everyone has a reason to kill you when you are out at sea. The protection you gain from the consequence of going red does not exist there. So rather than people worry about (I can go to town to dock my boat, I need to get somewhere to work off my corruption effective, I'm a even bigger target on the ocean) does not exist. This leads to more pvp battles on the ocean between travelling with loot or doing whatever content is out there and trying to get back to land with loot.
If I use BDO as an example with how people play different between different types of servers as they have their own form of a corruption system. People don't attack everywhere or it is very limited as people don't want to go red and it does not happen in most cases. Now when you are on the PvP server people aren't as friendly freely will flag up on you causing way more friction and battles.
Now adding tot he fact you can gain loot from people, everyone is a potential target and will have a different kind of sense of danger and risk on the ocean. It doesn't mean everyone is going to simply attack because you are flagged and politics will still be fair game to help protect members. But the danger from PvP will be much higher, people will have that feeling of do I stay or do I cash in what I need to I don't lose it.
That feeling of risk will be like a hanging cloud always on some ones mind. Compared to the corruption system that attempts and will greatly reduce that feeling.
I know this feeling from when i played shadowbane with set town respawn points that were very far and full loot drop. It is a different beast all together when it comes to risk and friction.
Kind of where the conversation dies.
On land any green player has some arbitrary chance of getting attacked and/or killed by another player. The chance to get attacked is really high, due to resource scarcity and mats dropping on death. The chance to die is much lower, due to the high potential penalties related to being Red. And depending on the activity the green player is participating in currently, he has to weigh his chances to die, because farming some common trees will probably not lead to your death while farming a super rare metal vein most likely will.
Now on open seas, both the chance to get attacked and to then die from said attacks are waaay higher. Mainly because any person who enters open seas will become flagged by default and anyone will be able to attack anyone. As opposed to the land, where flagging up is the same as raising a sign that says "hit me", which might lead to the sign holder's death even if they might've not planned for it.
But on top of the "attacked" chance, the "death" chance is also way higher because there's no deterrent to killing another person. Yes, you lose half the stuff you would've lost if you were green, but the chance of your death is so much higher that the difference in drop values is negligible.
The main mechanic this can be compared to is the caravans. When you start a caravan you must understand that the chance of you getting attacked and dying increases drastically. Not only because you have better loot on you (as the caravan), but also because you're now "permaflagged" for the duration of your caravan trip. Anyone in the region who's up for some pvp is now completely free to join the attacking side and wipe the floor with you, if they happen to be much stronger.
We don't have any context for the heightened risk of open seas outside of "there'll be some cool shit there". But considering that a caravan's potential reward is x100 that of a green player, I personally expect open sea's reward to be a few times that of a caravan's. But that remains to be seen and tested.
Quotes go a lot of ways the issue is context is as important. There was never context of corruption being the defining force of all pvp content in the game. In fact reading the conversation as it continues to suggest other wise. But it doesn't matter if people want to take a quote and screw it to the meaning of what exactly they want. Nor has the quote said the only risk the game has is corruption.
Especially if I excel at PvP and even moreso if I have nothing to lose.
If what I have to lose upon dying is half of what I would normally lose upon dying, that is reduced risk.
I already said PvP without Corruption is increased PvP.
Increased PvP does not inherently mean increased deaths.
It’s just more times I have to actually engage in PvP combat if I don’t want to lose my stuff. Assuming I have stuff to lose.
Assuming that everyone is flagged purple, that is half-death penalties, which means half loot. If death penalties do not apply - as with Sieges, there is no loot.
If it’s the same rules as Caravans - it’s, at most, the same risk as Caravans, rather than more risk.
People do attack everywhere.
You don’t gain Corruption from attacking. You gain Corruption from killing Greens.
What is the danger from PvP on the Open Seas?? You lose less on the Open Seas than you do on land.
All of those things can justify the heightened chance to die. At least for me. But if there's no real reason for the permaflag, I might be against the change too, just because I'm sure there's more people like you that won't play the game purely due to this mechanic. And I personally want the game to have as many people as possible w/o sacrificing the corruption system, and open seas got nothing to do with it.
That is fine if you are losing half the amount or whatever they decide, the chance of dying out there is higher with the amount of people willing to PvP so it helps balance that out.
Increased corruption does not inherently mean more deaths either.
If they have no death penalty than there wouldn't be more risk, you just suicide and go to land. (but now we are making too many assumptions, i dont see they doing that as their goal.)
You are well aware that corruption is a deterrent to PvP that is why you needed to test it to see if it would be strong enough. That deterrent being strong enough should stop pvp from being as active on the water (even more so if you can make someone red by having them kill a lower level member on your boat).
Meaning if the goal with corruption is to lower the amount of pvp it would effectively do that on the ocean causing less risk if people wouldn't deem the punishment worth to kill a green.
Really? That is interesting. I didn't expected that.
To be able to see if the backpack or mule is fully loaded make travel riskier.
If the trip from a continent to the other is long, you need scouts to know if the path is clear and take evasive maneuvers.
Before, scouts would stay green.
Now you will loose the scouts which might be costly for a caravan. Without scouts, it is higher risk.
The caravan which takes higher risks and survives the trip without scouts, will have higher profit.
Let’s assume you are way better at PvP than I am. Even if I have a bunch of unique resources on me when you kill me, I lose a portion…half what I would normally use if I was a Non-Combatant and I suffer half the normal death penalties.
I could choose to stay on the coast near my respawn point rather than return to the Open Seas. That is not an increased chance for me to die.
Since it’s only half the normal penalties, I choose to return to the Open Seas right after I respawn. You kill me again. Again, I lose a portion of my resources. Half what I would normally use if I was a Non-Combatant.
At this point, my loss equals the same as if I had died once as a Non-Combatant. So, I call it a day for the Open Seas.
I have experienced PvP twice as often as I would have if I was a Non-Combatant. My risk of loss was the same; not higher.
Also, you experienced PvP twice as much as you might have if you had gained Corruption from the first time killing me. Your risk of losing or dying did not increase. You are way better at PvP than I am, so…you were not going to lose anything in any case.
You have no risk. You chance of dying has not increased.
For all we know, you could be among the top PvPers on the server.